



.-^^ 






W- 







V 












,5) . • '^ > 



»•■•' •''•<*• v*. 



'<' -■.. 



4 »*^yr??->u. ^ 



''^ 



-^^^ 










' o,^ 






^0 -/» • ^fe 





















x-^ 



•^^ .-^JJ 




o V' 






^V .<i 









c .0 4 » • ' 






/ >' 
-^* 






REVIEW OF THE PROCLAMATION 



Prbsidbnt Jackson 



OF THE 



lOth OK DECEMBE;R, 1832, 1 



SERIES OF NUMBERS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE ^^ NOR FOLIC 
AND PORTSMOUTH HERALD^ 



UKDER THE SIGNATURE OF "A VIRGINIAN." 
HON. LITTLETON WALLER TAZEWELL. 



NORFOLK: 

J. D. QHISELIN 

1888. 



1 






%^ 



<f >^ 



55409 



PRESS OF 

EOWAflD O. JENKINS' SONS. 

NEW YORK. 



A REVIEW OF THE PROCLAMATION OF 
PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



L 

Norfolk, December 28, 1832. 

The recent Proclamation of the President of the United States, 
in denying the correctness of certain propositions that have ever 
been held (in Virginia, at least,) as fundamental truths of consti- 
tutional law, and bj affirming, in the confident language of au- 
thority, the propriety and justice of other propositions, which we, 
of Virginia, have ever regarded as political heresies, seems to de- 
mand of some Virginian to review these, his various assertions. 

I have waited ever since the Proclamation fiist appeared, in the 
hope that some one more disposed and better qualified to perfoim 
such a task, would undertake it ; but as none such has yet done 
so, even I will essay its performance. In doing so, my sole object 
is Truth ; the sole means I shall employ for its attaimnent, will 
be reason and fair argument ; the sole authorities upon which I 
shall rely, will be the History of our country for my facts, and its 
Constitution for my principles. 

AVhen the occasion that has induced this Proclamation shall 
have passed away (as pass away it must), the questions raised by 
the President will still remain. 

They have become the property of History. JS"o matter how 
these questions may be now settled or disposed of, they will still 
arise hereafter as problems of deep interest in political phiJosopliy, 
to occupy the anxious reflections of statesmen yet unborn, as they 
have employed heretofore the solemn meditations of the wisest 



4 A KEVIEW OF THE 

and best amongst us who are now no more. Seen through the 
long vista of Time, the meanings of the several personal alhisions 
which darken the surfaco of this- State paper, will not then be un- 
derstood ; the faults of its style will be then concealed hy the 
rust, or ascribed to the prevailing taste of other days ; even the 
spirit in which it is conceived will not be discerned, nor its im- 
mediate objects regarded. Under such a light do I now Avish to 
examine it; -and, disregarding everything but it? doctrines, I pro- 
pose calmly to inquire: Are these true? I may hereafter, per- 
haps, institute another inquiry as to the authority of the Chief 
Magistrate of such a government as that of the United States, to 
utter ex cathedra ajiy dogmas whatever; and as to the probable 
effects of such a novel practice in this country, even if it is con- 
ceded that the dogmas so proclaimed may be true. 

But as this is a matter of minor importance, and in its nature 
is properly consecutive of the first inquiry, I merely announce it 
now, to show that I have not overlooked a great question, which, 
under a different view of this subject than that which I propose 
to take, would present itself naturally at the very threshold. 

As preliminary to the examination of the questions I have sta- 
ted (which examination may very possibly be drawn out through 
several numbers), it will be necessary to offer a few brief and very 
general remarks upon the nature and objects of all governments, 
and upon some of the peculiar characters of our own. 

These will constitute the matter of this number, which is de- 
signed as merely introductory of my intended investigation. 

JSlo history records, nor any tradition even faintly preserves, the 
commencement of that struggle between Power and Itight, which 
has contiiuied unceasingly to this day, and must still go on while 
man is but man. 

Founded upon this long experience, is the general truth which 
60 many particular examples illustrate, that whoever is possessed 
of authority will probably abuse it. 

Uut as in a world compounded of good and evil. Eight can 
never be long preserved, except by Power, the securities of Right 
must necessaiily be confided to the custody of Power, although 
man is certain that this will be perverted, and often misemployed. 
It is better to trust the flock to the dog, although we know that 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 5 

he will, and does, worry it, than to leave it defenceless against the 
insatiable voracity of the devourino; wolf 

In yielding to the necessity of committing the preservation of 
Kiglit to the care of Power, man has always endeavored so to 
muzzle and shackle Power, as that while its stren<rth niio-ht re- 
main unimpaired for the attainment of good, it should be impo- 
tent to accomplish any evil. 

Free government is the device to attain this desirable end; and 
the various forms under which such governments have existed 
throughout all time, are but different inventions to accomplish the 
same purj)ose. 

Parental affection, the obligations of lleligion, the precepts of 
Education, and the division of authorities, all, all have been tried, 
in past time, singly, and in every sort of combination which inge- 
nuity could suggest, as checks and limitations of Power ; but they 
were all tried in vain. Power granted to protect Pight has al- 
ways proved unmindful of its charge. Sooner or later it has con- 
trived to rid itself of the shackles imposed upon it ; and govern- 
ors, even when but the creatures and agents of society, have be- 
lieved themselves born to command it, and have somehow or other 
become its Lords and its Masters. 

Although always disappointed and defeated, yet Patriotism has 
never relinquished her hope of ultimate success. 

In every new state of things, she has presented some new 
scheme, to remedy the known defects of her former plans, and to 
prevent their recurrence. For a long time nature herself seemed 
to oppose these devices, and to present her immutable lav/s as 
obstacles not to be ov^erconie by the wisdom of the most enlight- 
ened sages. That the People should govern themselves, directly 
and immediately, was one of the experiments of Antiquity, which 
experience soon proved to them, could never be applied, with any 
hope of success, to any temtory of wide extent, because it was 
impossible to gather together the people of such a territory, either 
as often, or as promptly, as their necessities required ; and even 
if this was possible, their numbers would be too great for useful 
deliberarion. Hence, it was a maxim of one of tlie wisest of tlie 
Greek Philosophers, that extent of territory -was incompatible 
with the existence of a Republican Government. The same Phi- 



6 A KEVIEW OF THE 

losoplier lived to see a small territory fall an easy prey to the am- 
bition of a more powerful neighbor. Free government, therefore, 
seemed to be prohibited to mankind. 

Centuries rolled by after the annunciaticn of this supposed po- 
litical maxim', and it still continued undenied and undoubted by 
the learned. At length. Barbarism enveloped the better part of 
the civilized world, and the torch of Science was extinguished. 
It is in these dark ages, when the light of Science had ceased to 
shine upon a benighted world, that the historian first sees a new 
Star appear, to shed its lustre upon humanity. 

Feel)le were its rays at first, but they wxtc soon collected by 
the watchful industry of Patriotism, and their heat then sufficed 
to rekindle the expired vestal flame of Liberty and Right, which 
has never since ceased to burn bright and clear. Learning may 
continue to deplore her losses by the ravages of the Gothic con- 
queroi's of the Western Empire, but Freedom finds ample com- 
pensation for this loss, in their great invention of Representative 
Government, and its necessary companion. Trial by Jury. 

The present generation is not indebted to their barbarian pro- 
genitors for the inestimable blessing of Representative government 
only. To our Anglo-Saxon ancestors we also owe the invention 
of written Charters, the best guarantees of Liberty, while those 
who freely give, or those who bravely exact them, have the wis- 
dom to understand the nature of the grants, and the firmness to 
preserve their provisions inviolate. Under such Charters, extorted 
from their Kings by the clear heads and stout hearts of their 
English ancestors, do their posterity enjoy all of Liberty now felt 
in Great Britain. To the sensitive jealousy always manifested 
by that people, at any attempt to violate the conditions of these 
grants, is the world indebted for the first idea of Constitutional 
Law, and legal Liberty. 

The violation of this Liberty brought one King of Great Britain 
to the block, to atone with his blood for the crimes he had com- 
mitted against its sacred guarantees. The attempted violation of 
this Law, hurled another from his throne, to expiate in exile his 
intended sins against the charters. Such is the foundation of 
British liberty, and such the means by which it was, and is still, 
secured. 



PROCLAMATION OF PEESIDENT JACKSON. 7 

When Korth America was first colonized by Great Britain, our 
forefatliers settled here under the protection of written Charters, 
in each of which were tliej assured the full enjoyment of all the 
rights of free-born British subjects. These rights were trampled 
upon by the power of the mother country ; and we were then too 
weak to protect thcra. But time rolled on, and we became 
stronger. Former submission provoked (as it always does) new 
aggressions. We first petitioned our Sovereign for relief, but he 
was deaf to cur prayers. We then called upon our fellow-sub- 
jects to assist us in obtaining redress and security, but they, too, 
were heedless of our applications. 

They so forced us to appeal to the God of battles, and in inde- 
pendence we wrung from our oppressors that which, had they 
have granted at first to our just supplications, might possibly have 
preserved much longer its richest jewel in the British Crown. 

The chartered rights of British subjects were ours. Of these 
rights we had been unjustly deprived. Like our common ances- 
tors, we demanded them in battle, and like them, by battle we 
obtained them. 

Although the acquisition was sealed with some of our best blood, 
yet all knew it would be of little avail, if not secured by as much 
of wisdom and of valour as had been evinced in the purchase. 

Therefore, to preserve and perpetuate that Liberty which had 
80 been earned, our wisest citizens were assembled to devise a 
form of government. To these assemblages are we indebted for 
all our original constitutions, the peculiar characters of some of 
which charters, it shall be the purpose of my future numbers to 
display. 

At present, I will merely say, that they were all the new in- 
ventions of most profound wisdom, designed to embody all that 
experience had shown to be useful, in any of the institutions of 
other times, and to apply it to the particular condition of this 
country then. 

The Democratic form had presented the heau ideal of govern- 
ment to many of the wisest of the ancient political philoso- 
phers, because, under this form of government, the Rights of the 
people were guarded by tlie Power of the people ; and it was not 
to be believed that such Trustees could ever prove false to such a 



8 



A EEVIEW OF THE 



Trust. But experience had taught even these Philosophers, that 
under such a government, a small State conld not defend itself 
with sufficient vigour against the sudden assault of a more power- 
ful neighbonr ; and their own a jpriori reasoning had convinced 
them, that the principles of a Democracy could not be usefully ap- 
plied to a wide, extended empire. Gothic knowledge, however, had 
achieved what Grecian and Eoman learning had in vain attempt- 
ed. In devising Eepresentative government, it had obviated all 
the objections to a Democracy whiclf antiquity had felt or seen. 
Hence, a Eepresentative Democracy was everywhere adopted by 
the sagacity of the American statesmen, as that form of govern- 
ment most approved by the wisdom of the past, and best suited to 
the particular condition of our country at that time. 

The origin of all former governments of tliis kind (if, indeed, 
any such had ever been), was hidden by the ignorance of the l)ar- 
barian people with whom they had existed, or so imperfectly ex- 
hibited to modern view, as to enable us only to infer that origin, 
from the subsequent references to its supposed ancient features. 

^ Most conspicuous amongst these references was that to the an- 
cient positive compacts between the governors and governed, 
whereby the rights of all were supposed to be expressly declared 
and consecrated. 

Whether such compacts had at first any other than a presumed 
existence, was a matter which, however interesting to the Anti- 
quarian, was of little concern to the Patriot. Time" had stamped 
the presumption (if it was such) with the authenticity of Truth : 
and in all his references to them, the sagacious statesman of ancient 
days regarded them as the solemn expressed assurances of the rigiits 
of the governed, to be guarded by them with all vigilance, Ind 
sealedanew, if necessary, with their best blood— .VoLm^^ leges 
Anglim mutari quce hucus que usitatw sunt et approhata', was the 
language of British freemen, who, trusting to their own vigour to 
maintain them, preferred to hold their rights under the customs 
of a time beyond which the memory of man runneth not, rather 
than to expose them to the cavil and artifice of insidious construc- 
tion. Hence, all the instruments of British legislation designed 
to secure rights to the People, from the great charter of Eunny- 
inede, to the last act of Parliament which established the House 



PKOCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JAOKSON". 9 

of Bnmsuick on the throne by the free voice of the people of 
Great Britain, all are bnt declaratory Laws, not professino- to ^ive 
what the people had not before, but merely to assure rights which 
had been theirs in all time past. 

The wisdom of this example, although duly appreciated here, 
could not be imitated exactly in our country ; but it taught a les- 
son which American Patriots improved. The monarchy of Eng- 
land was of an origin so ancient, as to defy any search for its 
primitive foundations. The prerogatives of the Crown and the 
privileges of the People both rested upon the same base, innne- 
morial usage. All the declarations of what these were and ever 
had been, (no matter how such declarations Avere obtained,) pro- 
ceeded from an existing and acknowledged sovereign, seeming at 
least to limit its own power by declaring it. But the American 
assertion of Independence, in diss(^lving our connection with the 
government of the mother country, left us no substitute for that, 
and so imposed upon us the necessity of establishing a new gov- 
ernment for ourselves. A government thus created, could have 
; Jep powers derivable from custom : could have no authorities but 
^^fc as should be bestowed upon it in terms, by its ci'eators. 
While these creators, in the Yery fact of establishing a new gov- 
ernment for themselves, thereby asserted and manifested their 
pre-existing Right to do so. Hence, it resulted, and from necessi- 
ty too, that while all the Powers of all our goTernments are deriv- 
ative and temporary, the Kights of those who created these gov- 
ernments are self-existent and eternal. 

Therefore, in each of these United States, the People by whom 
all our governnjents were created and established, are the only le- 
gitimate Sovereign. Governors and Magistrates of all sorts, are 
but the agents and servants of these their creators, a]ipointed to 
attain the good of the People, by the exei'cise cf the powers and 
authorities granted to them for that purpose by the People, and 
responsible to the People for the manner in v/hich all these du- 
ties have been performed or neglected. In the relations between 
such a Sovereign and such its agents, the idea of a compact of any 
kind, can find no place. In governments whose powers rest upon 
force, the victor sovereign may grant to its vanquished subjects, 
rights and immunities, which being designed for the benefit of 



10 A EEVIEW OF THE 

the grantees, constitute a limit upon the authority of the grantor 
in being irrevocable. Such grants may well be termed compacts 
between the granting Sovereign and his accepting subjects, 
solemn agreements which neither party ma}' of right alter, with- 
out the consent of the other. So too, in governments of unknown 
antiquity, according to the theory of whose unwritten law the 
governors are omnipotent, even if this vast power bo derived not 
from force but from consent, this very consent constitutes a sol- 
emn compact. 

In this country, however, none of whose governments have 
been established by force; where the origin of all is the creation 
of but yesterday, governors can filch no Power, or the governed 
lose any Eight in the gloomy obscurity and uncertainty of an- 
tiquity. Here everything is clear as was the light of that 
blessed day on which was proclaimed the sacred truths, that here 
the People are the only Sovereign of the People; that here mag- 
istrates of all sorts are but the agents and servants of this Sover- 
eign, called into being by its fiat, solely for its own benefit, de- 
riving all their authority from its grants, which grants are revoca- 
ble at the pleasure of the grantors, because intended solely for 
their own good. But the idea of a compact, lawfully revocable at 
the will of one of the parties, would be a legal paradox, not less 
absurd than the moral absurdity of a compact between a creator 
and his mere creature formed for the Creator's own use. 

It results from all this, that whatever of truth there may be in 
the theory of the political Philosophers of the old world, which 
considers government there as a compact between the governors 
and the governed, no such theory can be true here. 

None of our governments can ever be considered as such 
contracts. 

They are mere revocable procurations, simple delegations of 
limited and temporary authority, executed by the Sovereign 
People to their attornies, which agents are thereby authorized 
and required by their constituents, to accomplish certain pur- 
poses, by certain defined means, the constituents thereby allowing 
and confirming whatsoever shall be done by their attornies, under 
this power, and in pursuance of its authorities, but nothing else. 
— Ilere governors can derive no i)0\vevjure divinOy for they are 



PEOCLAMATIOI^ OF PEESIDENT JACKSON. 11 

known to be the mere creatures of man's wil], and designed for 
his use. Here thej can chiim no omnipotent authoiity, for the 
People created them, and the creator must be superior to his 
creature. 

Here every legitimate power exercised by governors must be 
derived from grant, and when so derived, it is of course defined 
and limited. 

Here the People gave all that is given, may take away at their 
pleasure all that thej' have given, and we all unite in calling 
down blessings upon that Sovereign People. 

Biit who is this mighty and blessed and Sovereign People, the 
authors and preservers of the most stupendous work of human in- 
vention for the security and perpetuation of the liberty of man ? 

The answer to this enquiry shall constitute the subject of mj 
next number. 



12 A REVIEW OF THE 



II. 

Norfolk, December 31, 1832. 

Who constitute that great Corporation and body politic I have 
called The People, which all in these now United States concur 
in freely acknowledging as their liege Lord and only earthly sov- 
ereign by whose fiat all our governments have been created 
and endowed, and at whose will they may at any time be 
rightfully dissolved and annihilated ? This is the question, which 
in my last number I promised to examine in this ; and I now will 
proceed to redeem my pledge. 

No American is so ignorant of the history of his own country, 
as not to know, that prior to the commencement of our Revolu- 
tion, there did not exist- anywhere on this vast continent, such a 
body politic as The People. Then whoever dwelt in America, 
was either a savage Indian, or the liege subject of some European 
Sovereign. Xone of the various savage Tribes who wandered 
over the surface of much of this continent, had then ever regard- 
ed themselves, or been regarded by any others as constituting a 
fixed Society acknowledging allegiance to any Sovereign, or as 
constituting that moral and accountable being called a State. 
Had any civilized man or set of men presumed, at that time, to 
assert his or their sovereignty here, the assertion would have been 
considered by all as sedition and the attempt to maintain it by 
force, as an overt act of treason against his European master ; fur 
all white men in America then claimed to be the loyal subjects 
of some such Lord. 

It is true, that in British America, thei'e existed sundi-y tracts 
of country delineated upon the geographical charts as British 
Colonies, the inhabitants of each of which regions were formed 
into separate and fixed Societies, whose ati'airs were regulated by 
long-established governments, the power of each of which gov- 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 13 

erntnents was limited by the particular boundaries of its own 
Colony, their acts having no obligation or force beyond the local 
limits of such territory. None of the^e governments, however, 
exhibited any such body politic as The People, for they all de- 
rived their powers, either mediately or immediately, from the 
British Kings, whose mere agents they ever had been, and then 
were. Nor were these Societies themselves known by any com- 
mon name of distinction, but only as the Colony of Virginia, the 
Colony of Massachusetts Bay, of Canada, of Nova Scotia, and the 
like; for each of these communities was then sepai-ate and dis- 
tinct, in all things, from every other, the Colonists being connect- 
ed by no other social or political tie, save that of the allegiance 
which all acknowledged, not to any People, but to the Crown of 
Great Britain. 

British misrule converted some of these subjects, wdiose loyalty 
had once been the highest boast, into sturdy insurgents against 
the authoi'itv they had before delighted to acknowledge ; and in 
triumphant victory they achieved that glorious Revolution, which, 
under different auspices, might have been branded as a traitorous 
Rebellion. This Revolution, however, .in dissolving the former 
governments, did not dissolve the former Societies ; and years 
before it was perfected, the Revolt had taken place. No hope 
could be entertained of ultimate success to this Revolt, unless 
some new government should be established in the stead of that 
which had been dissolved, to order and direct proceedings, to 
sanction acts, to speak and to determine for all its members. But 
by whom, and for whom, was or could such an Institution as 
government, be then ordained and established here ? 

The general answer to this question is obvious. As all gov- 
ernment supposes the pre-existence of some established Society, 
whose affairs it is designed to regulate, and the rules for the Civil 
conduct of whose members it is required to prescril)e, therefore, 
by none other than some pre-existing and established Society can 
any government be created or ordained. Even when foreign 
force is the foundation of government (as is too often the case), 
still as such force can only be exerted by some established Society 
over the will of some other Society, or some part of it, when this 
force is employed with success, the victor Society, while dissolving 



14 A REVIEW OF THE 

the former bonds of association of its vanquished antagonists, incor- 
porates them as a part of itself, under whatever conditions it 
may please to prescribe, and so creates and ordains a government 
for them. But when the foundation of government is not force, 
but consent, it would be a paradox to suppose the consent of any 
others than of those who had the right to consent, that is to say, 
of the members of that particular pre-existing and established 
Society for .the regulation of whose affairs such government is 
designed. None then but the pre-existing established Societies in 
British America, could ordain a government for such Societies, 
except by force; and the government ordained by any one of 
these Societies, deriving all its powers from it, could have had no 
authority except over that Society itself. 

When we apply this obvious general conclusion to the facts of 
the particular case, we must all be at once convinced, that all the 
primitive governments of the diiferent revolted Colonies of Great 
Britain must have been ordained and established by the f^everal 
Societies then existing in the revolted Colonies respectively, and 
for their own special and particular benefit. Therefore, that none 
of these governments could have had any other authority than to 
regulate tlie affairs of their own creators, and of none others. I 
say, that these governments must have been so established and so 
endowed, because at that time there did not exist, nor ever had 
existed, any such society or community as The People of America, 
or of the British Colonies in America, or of the revolted British 
Colonies in America, or under any other name or form, save that 
of the Colony of Georgia, of South Carolina, etc., etc. Therefore, 
by these several and distinct communities alone, all our primitive 
governments must have been, and in point of fact were, ordained 
and established ; and governments being so established, these 
several ommunities, their respective authors, thereby assumed 
to be, and so far as thej' were severally concerned, became, that 
great moral and accountable being, a sovereign State, which, 
having chosen the Democratic form for its goveniment, was 
known and styled the Commonwealth. 

Doubtless the different revolted Colonies might, if thov had 
thought proper, have consented to amalgamate and blend them- 
selves together into one single Society, and then have established 



PROCLAMATION OF PEESIDENT JACKSON. 15 

any sort of government wliich they cliose for tbis new com- 
munity. Had tliey have done so, we should never have lieard of 
the State of Pennsylvania, or the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
In t^.iat event, none of these former communities wonld have 
possessed sovereigiity, the essential attribute of a State, for all 
M'onld have sunk and dwindled into mere municipalities, bodies 
corporate but not politic, created or permitted to exist, not by 
their own will, but at the will and pleasure of this other more 
august being " The Nation " by whatever name that " Nation " 
might have been pleased to baptise itself. But the patriot Sages 
of that day did not choose so to do. 

Kor was this decision the result of any "State pride," or de- 
signed "to find advocates" in any " prGJudic3," although that 
prejudice might be " honest." No, it wae dictated by that pro- 
found and sagacious wisdom which can see the future in the past. 
These patriot Sages had read, and well knew, that Communities 
occupying different territories of wide extent, situated under dif- 
ferent climates, professing diiFerent religions, long governed by 
different laws, having different manners, habits, customs, occupa- 
tions, and, of coui*se, many different and conliicting interests, 
could never be melted down into a single Society, and kept 
together as such, but by a much stronger power than any which 
they thought it either safe or prudent to create. Such communi- 
ties, while separate and distinct, might be well and easi\y con- 
federated, nay, even um'ted, for many purposes useful to all and 
essential to some, and still continue to enjoy liberty in peace. 
But the day which should see them compressed into one Society, 
to be governed by a single overruling consolidated govei'nment, 
■would be the eve of that on which their Freedom must be sacri- 
ficed to the power of an interested majority, in the very temple 
dedicated to its perpetual worship, unless the victim miglit be 
saved by arms. 

Convinced of this, there was not one Statesman in any of these 
different Colonics at that day, who even proposed, or who even 
conceived, so far as we know, the wild and mad project of 
establishing a single Society, to be CDmposed of all the revolted 
Colonies, and to be regulated by a consolidated " National " govern- 
ment, stretching itself over all. This conception was the product 



16 A REVIEW OF THE 

of an after-daj. — How it was treated when it was first presented, I 
will show at some other time. 

Does any one doubt now, whether the first governments estab- 
lished in these now United States, were ordained by the several 
revolted colonies, each acting as a Sovereign, for itself, and by 
itself, w'ithout any reference to or dependence npon any other 
colony ? Let him consult the history of that day, and he will 
find that the- Revolt was not a simultaneous movement of all these 
Colonies, but was effected in each by several successive acts per- 
formed at difi'erent times. Nay, that independent governments 
had actually been established in several of these colonies, and 
were in full operation before any declaration of Independence 
was uttered by them all when assembled in a general Congress, 
So true is this, that even to this day, it is a matter of amicable 
contest among several of these different communities, now States, 
which of them is entitled to the honour of first annulling the 
Royal Authority within its own domains, and proclaiming itself a 
patriot Rebel. 

Massachusetts claims it and points to the fields of Concord 
and of Lexington to prove her claim. Virginia claims it, and 
mentions prior acts of Treason in Arms which she had dared to do, 
I^orth Carolina claims it and shews her written declaration of 
Independence, fearlessly pronmlgated to the world, while some 
others were yet in doubt which side to take in the struggle to 
maintain their rights. To Massachusetts and Virginia she might 
say, your acts of Treason were but Insurrections, for when you 
performed them you still professed to acknowledge yourselves de- 
pendants of the Authority you then resisted in arms ; but mine was 
the first act of glorious Rebellion, for by it I renounced my former 
allegiance and proclaimed my own Sovereignty. 

Does any Virginian sceptic still doubt ? I refer him to the date 
of our first Constitution, to prove that this form of government 
was ordained and declared by "the Delegates and Representatives 
of the good People of Virginia" assembled in Convention, he/ore 
even the date of the declaration of Independence, and long before 
the signing and promulgation of that act. Referring him also 
to the language of that Constitution and of its accompanying 
Declaration of Rights, I ask him to tell nie, to whom, after the 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 17 

promulgation of these instruments, did the People of Yirginia 
owe any allegiance ? 

He will not say, that their allegiance was then due to their 
former liege Lord the King of Great Britain, for in these acts, 
after first asserting " that all power is invested in, and conse- 
quently derived from the People — that government is, or ought to 
be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of 
the People — that when an 3' government shall be found inadequate 
or contrary to these purposes, a nnijoritj of the community hath 
an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, 
alter, or abolish it " — the authors proceed to declare, " that the 
government of this Country, as formerly exercised under the 
Crown of Great Britain, was totally dissolved." 

He will not say either, that this allegiance was due to any 
of the other Colonies, for none of them had any stronger claims 
to the allegiance of Virginia, than she had to theirs — nor that it 
was due to any government formed by all the revolted Colonies, 
for there was no such government at that time — nor to the People 
of the United Colonies, for no such People had ever existed, nor 
were these Colonies then united by anj^ political tie whatever. 

"Were we then a gang of Banditti, a wretched horde of bar- 
barians, a mere savage tribe, without law or any institution of 
civil polity to bind our society together by the strong bund of a 
common allegiance ? 

Assuredly, we were not such, for to prevent this " deplorable 
condition, to which this once happy country must be reduced, 
unless some regular adequate mode of civil polity was speedily 
adopted," the same convention in the very act which declared the 
total dissolution of the former government, ordained " the future 
form of Government of Virginia." In this form of Government 
was proclaimed the name of this new body politic or sovereign 
by which it was created. This Sovereign was called, " The Com- 
monwealth of Virginia," and all our people pledged themselves 
through their Representatives "to be faithfnl and true to this 
Commonwealth," and called upon their God to attest the solemn 
pledge.* 

* The form of the present Oath of Allegiance in Virginia, or " the assurance 
of fidelity," as it is here called, is a curious and important instrument, to which I 

2 



18 A REVIEW OF THE 

Was this pledge violated by any overt act of force ? Tlie act 
was declared to be Treason, ar.d the proper punishment of this 
crime was announced. If it be true then, as the President in his 
Proclamation sajs, that " Treason is an offence against sovereignty, 
and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it," the 
Commonwealth of Virginia which defined this crime against 
itself, provided for its punishment, and once at least inflicted, it 
must have been a sovereign.* But if ever a sovereign, she be- 

Bhall probably refer at some other time. It runs thus : "I , do declare 

myself a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia ; I relinquish and renounce 
the character of subject or citizen of any Prince or other State whatsoever ; 
and abjure all allegiance which may be claimed by Buch Prince or other State ; 
and I do swear to be faithful and true to the said Commonwealth of Virginia, 
Bo long as I continue a citizen thereof. So help me God " (see Revised Code of 
1819, Vol. I., p. 72). 

No person has power to act in any office, legislative, executive, or judi- 
ciary, before he shall have given this assurance ; and all who may by law 
be reciuired to give assurance of fidelity, must for that purpose take this oath. 
[See the Law i(t supra, which was re-enacted on the 7th day of January, 1818.] 

* The law of Virginia defining and punishing Treason, is the sanction of the 
oath of fidelity, and is not less curious and important than the form of that 
assurance. It is in these words: " If a man do levy war against the Commonwealth 
in the same, or be adherent to the enemies of the Commonwealth, within the same, 
giving to them aid and comfort in the Commonwealth, or elsewhere, and thereof 
be legally convicted of open deed, by the evidence of two sufficient and lawful 
witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the cases above rehearsed shall be 
judged Treason which extendeth to the Commonwealth, and the persons so con- 
victed, and, his or her aiders, abettors and counsellors, being thereof convicted, 
shall suffer death, by hanging by the neck without benefit of clergy. Also, 
every person or persons, who shall erect or establish, or cause or procure to be 
erected or established, any government separate from, or independent of the 
government of Virginia, within the limits thereof, unless by act of the Legisla 
tare of this Commonwealth for that purpose first obtained ; or who shall, 
in any such usurped government, hold or execute any office, legislative, 
executive, judiciary, or ministerial, by whatever name such office may be dis- 
tinguished or called ; or who shall swear, or otherwise solcnuily profess alle- 
giance or fidelity to the same ; or who shall, under pretext of authority derived 
from, or protection afforded by, such usurped government resist or oppose the 
due execution of the laws of this Commonwealth, shall be adjudged guilty of 
high Treason, and shall be proceeded against, and punished in the same man- 
ner as other Traitors may be proceeded against and punished." — [See Revised 
Codeof 1819, Vol. I., p. ."jOl.] 

The scholar may read the rough English of some parts of this statute, as he 
does the bald and confessedly bad Latin of Magna Charta, with a contemptuous 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON". 19 

came such at the moment when she " totally dissolved " the former 
government, and in establishing a new form of government for 
herself, thereby announcing her absolute independence. All 
these acts were done he/ore the fourth day of July, 1776. Bj 
these acts she then became free, sovereign, and independent ; and 
from the bottom of my heart do I unite with the President in the 
fervent prayer, " May the great Ruler of Nations grant that the 
signal blessings with which he has favoured us, may not, by the 
madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost." 
But what is this ideal being of which every Virginian then ao- 
knowledged, and every Virginian still acknowledges, himself to be 
a liege, and which we have called " The Commonwealth of Vir- 
ginia." It is the People of Virginia. The members of that estab- 
lished society within this " Ancient Dominion," who renouncing all 
allegiance to a former Sovereign, incoi'poratcd themselves into a 
body politic, chose to bestow upon themselves this new Coi'porate 
name, in order to preserve and perpetuate the succession of the sov- 
ereign rights which they had then assumed. — Most of these patriots 
have sunk into the tomb, and the few who remain must follow tliem 
ere long ; but long after the last of them shall be no more, that body 
politic and corporate styled " the Commonwealth of Virginia," will, 
by the blessing of God, still live ; and while it does live, this name 
will denote the People of Virginia of any other day, as expressively 
and as justly as it did those by whom the name was first assumed. — 
That Commonwealth yet lives, and remains as sovereign now as 
then, unless it has done or suffered some act in the interim, to 
abrogate its powers or annul its rights. 

The people of Virginia, in shaking off their former allegiance, 
establishing a new form of government for themselves, and so 
assuming sovereignty and independence, did no more than was 

sneer ; but let him remember, that it is not to learning, but to knowledge, wie 
are indebted for our Liberty. Let him also remember, that in Virginia, we do 
not value highly that pedantry, which would amend the provisions of old instru- 
ments for the mere purpose of making their style more smooth, grammatical, 
or classical. Those who re-enacted this statute on the 28th of January, 1819, 
copied the rough parts of it from the old act of 1776, which was believed to be 
an accurate paraphrase of a very old English statute, written, I believe, in the 
Norman French. 



20 A REVIEW OF THE 

done, sooner or later, by eacli and every one of the thirteen 
revolted Colonies of Great Britain. 

Each of these, like Virginia, became, in virtue of such acts, 
that free, sovereign, and independent body politic called a State; 
and becoming such, it took upon itself any corporate name it 
cliose to adopt. But as all the governments then established 
were Representative Democracies, this coi-porate name, whether it 
was the Commonwealth or any other, was designed to denote the 
free people of that pre-existing and established society before 
known by the name of some of the revolted British Colonies. 

If, then, we ask, who constituted at that time that great Cor- 
poration and Sovereign body politic which I have called The 
People, which is the Lord of all in these now United States, the 
answer is, not the People of all the revolted Colonies collectively, 
but the People of each of them respectively. All individuals, be- 
ing members of anj' one of these separate, distinct, and independ- 
ent masses, owed faith, and truth, and allegiance to that particu- 
lar mass, which, under some selected corporate name, designed to 
distinguish it from all others, was then proclaimed as their only 
earthly sovereign. 

Such were the People of these Colonies then. As individuals 
they were subjects, as a body politic and corporate they were the 
sovereign of these subjects. 

Such sovereigns and such subjects these People have been ever 
since, and still are, unless (as I have said before) they have done 
or sufiered some act, during the interval of time which has elapsed 
since they took upon themselves these characters, to change this, 
their moral and political condition. Have they done so ? This 
18 the question which I propose to examine in my next Number. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 21 



III. 

Norfolk, January 2, 1833. 

The People of eacli of tLe several revolted Colonies of 
Great Britain, having become free, sovereign, and independent 
States, in the manner stated in mj last number, must necessarily 
contitme to be such Sovereigns now, unless they have done or 
suffered some act, since this their Sovereignty was assumed, 
whereby its rights and powers have been annulled. Have they 
done or suffered any such act ? 

This is the question, which, iu my last number, I proposed to 
examine in this. But a reperusal of the Proclamati(m of the Pres- 
ident, since this promise was made, having shewn me, what 1 had 
not befoi'e observed, tiiat doubts are therein cast upon the truth 
of my proposition which asserted the primitive sovereignly of the 
several States, although this is often admitted, by necessary im- 
plication, at least, in many other parts of this very instrument it- 
self, I think it right to endeavor to remove all these doubts before 
I proceed further in the execution of the task I have undertaken. 

During the various discussions, which the agitation of the ques- 
tions as to the extent of the legitimate powers of the present gov- 
ernment of the United States called forth, in former days, this 
asserted original sovereignty of the States was admitted and 
claimed by both sides, and was made the very basis of all the ar- 
guments of Federalists and Democrats respectively. 

To these discussions, there was then brought, by either party, 
as much of zeal, of industry, of wisdom, and of laborious research, 
as have ever been manifested in this country, before or since ; 
and the discussions were conducted, on either hand, by many of 
the Patriots of the Revolution, who were familiar with all its 
events, because they had been actors and advisers in that great 
scene ab initio. 



23 A REVIEW OF THE 

Nay, it nsed to be then contended, "by either party, that the 
jealous retainer by the States of their primitive rights of sover- 
eignty, had caused the necessity for the tl)en new Federal Consti- 
tution. 

But, like Moliere's mock doctor, " nous avons change tout cela," 
and the new College of Politicians, having younger, and of course 
wiser heads, have of late discovered, that all this was a mistake. 
The fashionable doctrine of the present day seems to be, that 
these States never were Sovereign ^ that there was, from the be- 
ginning, some great Central Sovereign power, abiding somewhere 
else than in the several States, of which they M-ere subjects, and 
all their people lieges. In illustration of this new doctrine, the 
Proclamation says, that " in our colonial state, although depend- 
ent upon another power, w^e very early considered ourselves as 
connected by common interest with each other. — Leagues were 
formed foi* common defence ; and before the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, we were known in our aggregate character as The 
United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step 
was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, 
not by several acts." 

The exceeding caution in which this passage is penned, its in- 
tended assertions of doctrine, while seeming to narrate facts, 
merely, and the opening it obviously and designedly leaves, for 
escape from these doctrines, under the fog and smoke of verbal 
criticism, should the doctrines be thereafter controverted, may 
perhaps excite the admiration of minds trained or training in the 
mazes of diplomacy. 

But when found in a State paper, uttered by the Chief Magis- 
trate, and announced by him, as being intended for the edification 
and instruction of those to whom it is addressed, it can never meet 
the approbation of the candid and ingenuous. 

Its obvious purpose is to assert, as a political dogma, that the 
revolted Colonies became one Sovereign Nation, before they sev- 
erally assumed sovereignty upon themselves as individual States; 
and so to prove, that the States never were sovereign. But as 
this new doctrine was in direct conflict with all our past opinions, 
and in seeming opposition to much of our past histoi-y, it would 
not do to bUut it in the public face at once, as doctrine, therefore 



PROCLAMATIOlSr OF PKESIDEl^T JACKSOIST. 23 

it 18 presented seeming-ly as a simple fact. Nay, it is not exhib- 
ited as a substantive fact, but in the modest guise of a mere iufer- 
ence from other facts. These other facts, too, are asserted in se- 
lected teruis of such broad and general signification, that it is 
difficult to fix their pi-ecise meaning. If, seeing the necessary 
tendency and eifect of the doctrine designed to be put forth in this 
passage, any one denies its truth, such may be innnediately met 
by the assertion, that it is not stated as doctrine, but as historical 
fact merely. If it be denied as such a fact, it may be immediately 
said, that it is not asserted as a substantive fact, but only as one 
inferi-ed from others previously stated. If the correctness of this 
inference is questioned, then commences a discussion as to the 
true meaning of the words employed to state the facts from which 
the inference is made ; and this discussion, if it convicts the au- 
thor of error, will also furnish him with an excuse for saying, that 
he is no scholar, not skilled in "metaphysical subtlety," and there- 
fore, may have used terms inappropriate to convey, accurately, 
his own meaning, which, however, is precisely j^ours. But if the 
true signification of the words employed in this apparent and sim- 
ple narrative, is once admitted to be that in which they are obvi- 
ously used, and if the facts themselves, so told, are conceded, then 
no logical mind can escape from the conclusion derived from such 
facts, and the purpose of this argument, which is to dispi'ove the 
original sovereign rights of the States, is fully attained. 

The ingenuity of an argument thus constructed, undoulitedly 
has merit, but it is not such merit as ingenuous candour can ever 
claim. It imposes upon all who may deny its conclusion, the la- 
borious task of unravelling a long tissue of supposed erroi's, and 
when they have done so, it exposes them to the sneer of having 
laboured to disprove what, it will then be said, was never af- 
firmed. 

On the other hand, if they pass by such things unnoticed, thej 
immediately fall into the snare laid for them, from which they 
cannot then easily extricate themselves. — For one, I greatly pre- 
fer to undertake the labour, and to subject myself to the sneer, 
than to incur the other hazard. Therefore, I will bring the whole 
of this narrative and argumentative pas3:ige to the test of a strict 
analysis. Its importance justifies, its art requires this. 



24 A REVIEW OF THE i 

The object of this ar<^unient, (confessed in its conclusion,) is tc 
prove that the People of some of tliese now United States, while 
in their colonial state, declared themselves to be a Nation, bv the 
Declaration of Independence made in 1Y76, under which tliey 
became '' One People." The necessary and inevitable result of 
this would be, that the People having once resolved themselves 
into one Nation, could not thereafter create themselves into sepa- 
rate and independent sovereignties, otherwise than by Ibrce, or 
by common consent. 

But as no one has presumed, as yet at least, to establish, or to 
attempt to establish sov^eieignty here, by foice ; and as there ex- 
ists not the slightest memorial of any common consent on the 
part of this supposed Nation, to its own dismemberment, there- 
fore the sovereignty of the States never could have existed. The au- 
thor of this Proclamation, does not seem to have been aware of the 
fact, which I stated in my last number, that before the declara- 
tion of Independence in July 1770, the People of Virginia cer- 
tainly, and of several of the other Colonies, I believe, had sever- 
ally announced their own sovereignty and independence, in 
totally dissolving their former government, and ordaining new 
governments for themselves respectively. But if such a fact had 
been known to him, it would not have changed the intended effect 
of his conclusion ; because, as this new Nation is said to have 
been created by the People, a part of which People the creators 
of State sovereignties wer:, their last act would of course have ab- 
rogated and animlled their first, and so put an end to the sover- 
eignty which tiny had created but a short time before. So that 
the Sovereignty of all the States which had declared themselves 
sovereign before the declaration of Independence in July 1776, is 
as certainly annulled, as the existence of the sovereignty of those 
States v.ho had not then declared it, is prevented, by the mere as- 
Berti(jn of this simple fact of our existence as one nation, if that 
fact was true. A matter so important in its consequences ought 
not, and would not be conceded, to the mere say-so of any man, 
although that man might be the President; therefore, it became 
indispensably necessary, that he should prove it. Hence the at- 
tempt to do so. — Let me now examine what these proofs are. 

As the object was to prove the existence of a Nation, the first 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON". 25 

,tep of the process must necessarily be to ]irove the pre-existence 
'>f a community. Government being superinduced upon this 
community, it would then become a Nation, so far at least as all 
ithe me nbers of that community were concerned. The first point 
to be proved, tlicii, was the existence of a community composed 
of all the People who were afterwards to become the subjects of 
the nation. Now how is this established ? 

" In our colonial state," says the President, " although depend- 
ent on another power, we very early considered ourselves con- 
nected by common interest with each other." A more flimsy 
pretext, from which to infer the existence of a single community, 
could not Ccisily have been selected ; and yet a more ingenious 
mode of getting up this pretext could not well have been devised. 
Mark, no social connection of any sort, is affirmed to have actually 
existed; it is merely said,, that we very early considered oui-selvea 
as connected. And by what was this itnaginary connection con- 
stituted? Were we inhabitants of a common territory, the va- 
cant and unoccupied parts of which were admitted to belong to 
all ? Ko. — Did we profess the same religious faith ? No. — Did 
there exist any one institution, which having been created or pre- 
served by all, was therefore common to all ? No. — By what tie 
then did this People consider themselves to be connected, in their 
colonial state ? Why, by the single tie of a supposed common in- 
terest. No man before President Jackson, ever thought of infer- 
rino- the existence of a community from such a fact, which if be- 
lieved to be sufficient to produce that effect, would consolidate, 
probibly, one-half the People of the whole world into one com- 
munity, and by so doing, would dissolve more than the half of all 
the societies now existing, whose members do not even consider 
themselves connected by any such tie. 

But perhaps it will be said, that I do the President wrong, in sup- 
posing that he meant the People when hesa.ys " we," that by this pei^ 
sonal pronoun he did not mean to denote all the Colonists, in their 
individual, but in the social characters which they had long had, and 
which was denoted by the term Colonies. If so, this sentence be- 
comes the simijle annunrjation of a well-known historical fact, 
proved by numerous documents in our archives, that even in their 
colonial state, the several Colonies considered themselves as connect- 



26 



A REVIEW OF THE 



ed with each other, by a connnon interest. But as all these docu- 
ments while establishing this fact, estabh'sh also, that this belief 
of a common interest was neither designed or ever supposed to 
amalgamate the different Colonies, by whom it was entertained, 
into a single cotnmnnity, but merely to invite to their co operation 
confideracy and union as distinct independent communities, it is 
not easy to discern how from sncli a fact, the existence of a single 
community conld be inferred. Therefore, and as the use mSe 
of the assertion was afterwards manifest, I was bound to consider 
its meaning to be such as I have stated ; especially as I found 
tliis word " we," in an address of the President to his " fellow-citi- 
zens, the People." 

So much for the first proposition of this argument, which if 
considei-ed in one light, asserts a truth directly in contradiction 
to its concliipion ; and if considered in another, asserts not only 
an unknown fact, bnt one unimportant if it could be known. In 
which of these lights it was designed to be seen, let the rules of 
the English language, and the conclusion of the argument itself, 
determine. 

Having inferred the existence of one great community, com- 
posed of all the People of the different revolting Colonies, while 
yet in their colonial state, the next step necessary to be taken in 
the argument designed to prove their subsequent existence as one 
nation, was to superinduce a government upon this great communi- 
ty : for a nation without a government, would indeed be a nonde- 
script, as horrible in the Political, as any of the fabled monsters 
of the natural world. Here, as before, it would not do to afiirm 
the establishment of any such government, at the time referred 
to, that is to say, "in our colonial state," as a positive fact, for 
this would be in direct contradiction of the other affirmation, of 
our dependence on another power ; and of such a fact too, there 
does not exist any scintilla of proof in any of our histories or 
State papers. Therefoi-e, the existence of such a government, 
like that of the community, was to be inferred. 'Now from w^hat 
is this second inference to be made ? 

" Leagues were formed for common defence," says the Presi- 
dent; and as leagues can only be formed by communities, ac- 
knowledging some government, authorized to speak and so to 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 27 

contrat'tfor them, if the fact be conceded that Leagues were formed 
by this great community, it establishes beyond doubt, not only 
tiie actual existence of such a community, but of its government, 
too. But mark the caution displayed in this assertion, also. The 
President does not say, in terms, at least, that these Leagues were 
so formed, but most sedulously avoids to state by whom, or with 
whom, they were formed. The cause of this studied obscurity is 
not difficult to be explained. If it had been asserted as an histor- 
ical fact, that in their colonial state, the Colonists being connected 
together as one community, had, in that character, entered into 
any League whatever, this fact could not have been proved, sim- 
ply because it neither is, or could be, true. But if it had been 
said, that these Leagues were formed by the different colonies 
with each other, as separate and independent communities, in as- 
serting this well-known historical truth easily to be proved by a 
reference to the Leagues themselves, the President would have 
dissolved completely his imaginary great community, and \yith 
it the government to regulate the affairs of this supposed Nation. 
Nay, he then would have established, beyond doubt, the sepa- 
rate and independent existence of the colonies, as acknowledged 
by themselves, in such Leagues. 

To avoid this dilemma, the author of this Proclamation most 
cautiously suppresses the fact by whom and with Avhom these 
Leagues were made. Yet, as they were certainly made for " com- 
mon defence," all those who may be disposed to believe that 
" we" in the first sentence denoted the Colonists as individuals, 
and not the colonies as communities, will of course conclude, that 
these Leagues were made by the same '-'we," with some commu- 
nity foreign to themselves. While those who understand " we" in 
a different sense, will arrive at a conclusion diametrically opposed 
to this,— so much for the second member of this argument, which, 
like the first, is either true or false, according to tlie meaning 
intended to be annexed by its author, to the words, " we " and 
" our." 

Having inferred the existence of a supposed community, and 
also inferred a government for it, in the mode I have staled, the 
next thing needful was to bestow a name upon this infmt Nation. 
But, as it would have been difiicult to infer a name wiiich could 



28 A REVIEW OF THE 

not li.ive bad any previous existence, the President was compelled 
to state th*3 name positively. Therefore, he next says, that " be- 
foi'e the d:clarntion of independence, we were known in our ag- 
grciijate charneter as The United Colonies of Amei-ica." The 
attempt to infer any fact, from any nam.e, merely, would be con- 
sidcsred. generally, rather as an assumption than an inference. 
But to infer the fact of a single JSTation, from the name of many 
United Colonies, or of many Colonies United, whether in America 
or anywhere else, is not only a groundless assumption, but a plain 
perversion of tlie meaning of words, unless United means Consol- 
idated. The President seems to have been aware of this, there- 
fore, to do away, so far as he cauld, the effect of his own strong 
"words, United Colonies, used, apparently, to shew, that the Colo- 
nies were united, and not consolidated into one mass or Nation, 
he tells us, that "we were known in our aggregate character " by 
this name. — Although I cannot help considering this plirase of 
"aggregate character "as very infelicitous, especially when ap- 
plied to United Colonies, yet I freely admit that the excuse of the 
Rhetorician may be found in the necessity the Politician felt to 
emjiloy it. There were two differing parties interested in the 
matter he was examining, and he was desirous to please both; 
therefore, fi'om the beijinnino; of his aro:ument, he had used terms 
60 general, that either might apply them to their own side : but 
when he came to give a name to his Nation, he found that so 
clearly indicating that it was not one consolidated mass, but many 
distinct masses united, merely, it was necessary to weaken the 
force of this. Hence, he tells us that, although we were united 
by name, yet in character we were aggregated, that is to say, 
consolidated. 

From what source the President may have derived his informa- 
tion as to aggregate character, except from its name, I know not. 
But if his information as to our character is as inaccurate as his 
representation of our name, but little reliance should be ])aid to 
it. I have before me a copy of the Journal of the first Congress, 
which met at "the Carpenter's Hall, in the City of Philadelphia, 
on Monday, the 5th day of September, 1774." In this first and 
most authentic document, which any one can consult, to discover 
either their name or character, at that day, both the one and the 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 29 

Other is thus described : " We, the Delegates of the several Colo- 
nies of Now Hampshire," etc., etc., (naming each), '^deputed to 
represent them in a Continental Congress." Under this name, 
and in this character, was their first great act of Association en- 
tered into, for non-importation, non-consumption, and non export- 
ation, and recommended "to the Pi-ovincial Conventions, and to 
the Committees in the respective Colonies," to be carried into 
effect by them. Under the name and character of '• The Dele- 
gates appointed by the several English Colonies of New Hamp- 
shire," etc., (naming each), " to consider of their grievances in 
General Congress," was their next great act, the Address to the 
People of Great Britain, uttered under the name and character 
of " We, the delegates of the Colonies of New Hai^pshire," etc., 
(naming each), "deputed by the inhabitants of the said Colonies, 
to represent them in a general Congress, to consult together," etc., 
was the Address to the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, 
put forth. Under the name and character of " We, your Majes- 
ty's faithful subjects of the Colonies of New Hampshire," etc., 
(naming each), " in behalf of ourselves and of the inhabitants of 
these Colonies, who have deputed us to represent them in general 
Congress," was the Address to the King adopted, which was the 
last act of that enlightened and patriotic body, the first Congiess. 
In short, there cannot be found a single act of the first Congress, 
in which that body denominated itself as "The United Colonies 
of America," or in which its members denominated themselves 
as delegates of or to any body of that name. So far from it, all 
these acts shew, upon their very face, that they were the acts of 
individuals, representing respectively, not one, but several con- 
stituent bodies, and these individuals, as the representatives of 
such constituent bodies, respectively, were said to be assembled 
in a general Congress. In further proof of which it may also be 
remarked, that the very first rule established to regulate the pro- 
ceedings of this Congress was, "that in determining questions, 
each Colony or Province should have one vote," without any ref- 
erence to tiie number of its delegates present, or to its importance 
in any sense whatever. 

Upon such evidence, I think myself justified in saying, that, 
although, at some subsequent period, it may possibly be found, 



30 A EEVIEW OF THE 

tliat the delegates united in a general Congress, in some of their 
ordinary proceedings, and for brevity's sake, may perhaps have 
Bpoken of themselves as the delegates of the United Colonies, yet 
in all solemn acts they are differently described. Thus, in tlie 
most important paper which they could utter, the Commission to 
Gen. Washington as Commander-in-Chief, granted on the 17th 
June, 1775, they style themselves " The Delegates of the United 
Colonies of New Hampshire," etc., (naming each, as before), and 
by that name, and in that character, grant to him all the rights 
and authorities which he then acquired. Therefore, the President 
seems to have as little ground for bestowing this new name of the 
United Colonies of America upon all the revolted Colonies or Col- 
onists of that day, as he has to bestow upon the Colonists any 
6uch nggregaie character as that under which he is supposed to 
assert that they were then known. 

Whether by the declaration of independence, uttered in 1776, 
either in the manner in which "that decisive and important step 
was taken," or in the language of that instrument, " we declared 
ourselves a JSTation," and so annulled or prevented all the sover- 
ei.o-n rights of the States, is a question I should have examined in 
this number, except for the reason I have before stated. 

But, Mr. Editor, I have already occupied so much of your 
Bpaee, that I must not intrude upon it at present, further than to 
say, that this declaration, being ^^e first act which occurs in our 
history, that can be, or is supposed to annul any of the Sovereign 
rights of the States, its minute examination made a part of my 
original plan, which will be prosecuted in my next number. 



PROCLAMATIOJ^T OF PRESIDENT JAOKSON. 31 



IV. 

Norfolk, January 4, 1833. 

The Declaration of Independence uttered in ITIG, was consid- 
ered, at that day, as the most important act which liad ever oc- 
curred in thi-3 Country, and subsequent time has nut vreakened 
the sentiment it was tlien intended to inculcate. 

"We still continue to commemorate it annually, on the day of its 
date, when all the citizens of these now United States, join with 
one accord, in humble adoration and joyful thanksgiving to that 
Divine Providence, under whose protection, the great truths it 
announces were afterwards maintained and established. 

But if the effect of this Declaration, was to consolidate all the 
then Colonies, by whose representatives it was made, as one na- 
tion, and to amalgamate their inhabitants into " One People," 
the Fourth day of July, instead of being celebrated as a Jubilee, 
would probably be spent much more appropriately in weeping 
and in wailing. Was such the true nature and intended effect of 
this Declaration ? This is the question I propose now to examine. 

In speaking of this Declaration, the President says in his Proc- 
lamation, " that decisive and important step was taken jointly — 
we declared ourselves a ]N"ation by a joint, not by several acts." 
It is obvious from this passage, that its author designed to estab- 
lish the existence of a Nation, not less by the manner in which 
this Declaration was made, than by the actual assertions of the 
instrument itself: for not satisfied with stating that this step was 
token jointly, he adds, that by such a joint act we declared our- 
Belves a Nation. I will examine into the truth of all these asser- 
tions, before I give my own views of the subject. 

A joint act, ex vi termini, implies the co-operation of several 
agents, by whose united and joined agencies it has been produced. 



82 A EEVIEW OF THE 

Hence, it would be a very great solecism, to speak of any act 
done by one ai^ent only, as a joint act; and therefore, no corpo- 
rate act is ever ])roperly described, as a joint act of a Corporation, 
even when such a body is composed of many members: for al- 
though the members may be many, the Corporation is bnt one, 
and the act, if a corporate act, must be performed by that one 
body only. It is not every act efl'ected by the co-operation of 
several agents, however, that is properly termed a joint act. Be- 
cause, although considered in reference to the number of its au- 
thors, every single act accomplished by the co-operation of several 
agents, must be their joint act, yet considered in reference to its 
intended eifects, as these may be many, and attach to all, to each, 
or to some only of its agents, the act is regarded as either j./int or 
several, accoiding to the nature of these intended effects. But as 
the intent of the act, cannot possibly be inferred from the number 
of agents co-operating to its accomplishment, while it is admitted, 
that several as well as joint effects may and do result even from a 
joint act, the nature of such an act can only be ascertained from 
the intention of the agents. This intention must always be sought 
for, and generally, is best manifested, in the declarations of the 
agents employed to perform the act, especially when these decla- 
rations are uttered in the act itself, and of course at the time of 
performing it. If these plain propositions, which every Tyro has 
hitherto acknowledged to be true, are still admitted to be correct, 
it will be found difficult certainly, nay impossible probably, to rec- 
oncile them with the assertions of the President, when the efi'ect 
intended to be produced by these assertions is remembered. The 
object in view in making these assertions is to prove thereby, that 
by virtue of the Declaration of Independence we acknowledged 
ourselves to be one Nation. Hence, the President says " that de- 
cisive and impoi'tant step was iiiken jointly .'''' Now if by this he 
means to say, merely, that this declaration was the work of many 
persons co-operating to produce it, no matter in what character 
they acted, he asserts a fact so unimportant to his purpose, and so 
familiar to every one, that it really seems almost ludicrous to ut- 
ter it with such apparent gravity, if indeed it was necessary to 
state it at all. 

But if he means to be understood, as asserting that this declara- 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON". 33 

t ion was the joint act of the representatives of any sino;le body, 
previously known as a Coinniiinity or Nation, besides the histori- 
cal error committed, he states what must be nnintellii^ible to all, 
except to those who can comprehend how any single body can do 
any joint act. 

I should have been disposed to consider this sentence a^. a mere 
inaccuracy, caused by the precipitate haste in which this State 
paper was probably prepared, and therefore, to have passed it by 
unnoticed, but that it is in exact keeping with all the previous 
parts of this argument, and moreover, is in substance repeated 
more im{)ressively, in the next sentence, wherein it is said, that 
'' we declared ourselves a Nation by a joint, not by several acts.'* 
Now, if we were a Nation before the Declaration of Independ- 
ence was uttered, (as it was the purpose of all the previous parts 
of this argument to prove,) it would have been impossible for us 
as a Nation, to proclaim this fact by any joint act : and if before 
that event occurred, we were not a Nation, but separate commu- 
nities or individuals, it seems difficult to conceive how we 
(whether the Colonies or Colonists) could have declared ourselves 
as a Nation, by any other than several acts. 

The reason of all this mystification and apparent absurdity, will 
be obvious, when we come to consider the declarations actually 
made in the Declaration of Independence itself. We shall tlien 
lind, that this instrument, instead of proclaiming the Colonies to 
be one Nation, declared them to be "free and independent 
States," in terms. Hence, as it was impossible to infer the exist- 
ence of one nation from such terms, in which this idea is so plain- 
ly and positively negatived, resort was had to the manner in 
which this declaration was made; and we are told, "that decisive 
and important step was taken jointly," and that "we declared 
ourselves a Nation by a joint, not by several acts " — as if the 
plain and obvious meaning of the act itself, could be changed b\' 
any such extrinsic circumstances. 

I have now done with this part of the argument of the Presi- 
dent, the design of which is to show, that these States never were 
sovereign, in showing that they constituted but parts of another 
sovereignty called the Nation. 

I will now proceed to give my account of the Declaration of 
3 



34 A REVIEW OF THE 

Independence ; and therein to state my ideas of its effects upon 
the several Colonies, who, by their representatives, were parties 
to that instrument. 

The true nature and intended effects of the Declaration, can 
never be understood, from a consideration of the manner in w4nch 
it was executed, merely. 

Whether it was produced by the agency of one, only, or by the 
joint agency of many, or by the several agencies of different per- 
sons co-operating to the same end, is of little consequence. Its 
object and intended effects must be inferred from its language, 
although if that is ambiguous, these may very properly be sought 
for in extraneous circumstances of any kind, whether these cir- 
cumstances are found in the manner of the execution of the in- 
strument, or in anything else. 

Let us then, turn to the act itself, and judge from its contents, 
of its end and object, before we attempt to discover these last in 
any other way. 

When so examined, the Declaration of Independence seems to 
be a manifesto, addressed to the world, that is to say, to the civil- 
ized world, designed to inform it of the pre-existence of a new 
event interesting to humanity, and of the causes and circum- 
stances which had occasioned the occurrence of this new fact. 
Like the manifesto that generally accompanies or iannediately 
follows every modern Declaration of War, which, in announcing 
the new relations of the belHgerents, and narrating how these 
have been produced, it so contains an implied appeal to other 
States, and to posterity, for the justification of those by whom 
this new state of things has been made necessary. Considered in 
this light, it asserts nothing but what had previously existed, al- 
though but recently ; and its object is confined to the justification 
of tliat pre-existing state of things which it so announces. If this 
was its purpose, it cannot be considered as creating any new com- 
munity, as ordaining any new government, or bestowing any new 
name ; but as intended merely to announce the new condition in 
which former societies, under existing govermnents and names 
previously known, are placed. Its sole end, is to justify to othei-s 
that new condition which has been recently assumed by those 
who utter the manifesto. 



PROCLAMATION^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 35 

Whetlier this notion of the Declaration of Independence be 
correct, must depend, mainly, npon its own language. Let me, 
then, examine what this is. 

It commences hj saying, tliat " when, in the course of Imman 
events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the politi- 
cal bands which have connected tliem with another, and to as- 
sume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal sta- 
tion to which the laws of natui-e and of nature's God entitle them, 
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind reqniies, that tliey 
should declare tlie causes which impel them to the separation." 
Here, then, confessedly, is an appeal to mankind, induced by the 
decent respect due to tlieir opinions, designed to inform them of 
the fact of the dissolution of the political batids which liad previ- 
ously connected those making this appeal, with some other com- 
munity. Immediately following this introduction, comes the in- 
tended justification of this act. 

This consists of two parts : the a?sertion of certain general 
propositions, which the authors of this manifesto or appeal held 
to be self-evident, requiring no proof to ekablish them ; and the 
application of these general and self-evident truths to the partic- 
ular notorious historical facts existing in their case, which facts 
are concisely narrated. The general truths here announced, are 
those proclaimed in the Declaration of Rights previously promul- 
gated in Virginia, some of which I have stated in a former num- 
ber. Thoy are, in brief, these : 

That alf men are created equal ; and are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable rights ; among which are the 
rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of their happiness. 
That to secure these inalienable rights, governments are instituted 
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the 
governed.— That whenever any form of government becomes de- 
structive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to 
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations 
on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to 
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and hai)pinesa. 
—That, although these things are true, yet prudence dictates, that 
governments long established should not be changed for light and 
transient causes ; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that 



86 A KEVIEW OF THE 

mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufFerable, 
tlian to right themselves by abolishino; the forms to which they 
are accustomed. — But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, 
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce 
them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, 
to throw olf such government, and to provide new guards for 
their future security. 

Having thus shewn the clear right and solemn duty to do the 
act, the performance of which they had announced, namely, the 
dissolution of the political bands that had formerly connected the 
authors of this manifesto, and their respective constituents, with 
another government ; provided, such a long train of abuses and 
usurpations on the part of this other government, as they had 
referred to, existed, the Declaration next proceeds to set forth 
what were the abuses and usurpations, the previous occurrence of 
which would give point and special application to their asserted 
self-evident truths, and so justify that act. 

The catalogue of these abuses and usurpations need not be re- 
peated here. * 

All men must admit, that if the facts stated therein were true, 
as stated, and if the general propositions atlirmed were correct as 
alBrmed, they made together a perfect demonstration of that 
which they were intended to establish, that is to say, of the right 
to throw off the government of Great Britain, by which govern- 
ment these abuses and usurpations had been practised. But not 
content with this clear demonstration of a strict right, the authors 
of the Declaration go on to state further : 

That in every stage of these oppressions, the}' had petitioned 
for redress in the most humble terms ; but that their repeated pe- 
titions had been answered only by repeated injuries. That they 
had also appealed to the native justice and magnanimity ot* their 
British brethren, conjuring them, by the ties of common kindred, 
to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt 
their connexions and correspondence ; but that they, too, had been 
deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity — Wherefore, they 
weie bound to acquiesce in the necessity which denounced their 
separation, and to hold them, as they held the rest of mankind, 
enemies in war, in peace friends. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 37 

For all these reasons, tbe representatives of the United States of 
America, in general Congress Asseinhled, appealing to the Supreme 
Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions, did, in 
the name and by the autlioritj of the good people of these Colo- 
nies, their respective Constituents, solemnly publish and declare, 
that these United Colonies, were, and of right ought to be, Free 
and Independent States — That they were absolved from all alle- 
giance to the British Crown ; and that all political connexion be- 
tween them and the State of Great Britain, was, and ought to be, 
totally dissolved — And that as Free and Independent States, 
they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alli- 
ances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things 
which independent States might of right do. 

This is a full and faithful abstract, of everything contained in 
the Declaration of Independence, which any man can consider as 
important or applicable to the question now under examination. 
For the truth of this assertion, I refer to tlie Declaration itself, 
happily, now in tlie hands of almost every freeman in this coun- 
try — I appeal then, confidently, to every candid n)ind, to deter- 
mine, whether there is one word uttered, or one thought ex- 
pressed, or even implied, throughout the whole of this important, 
clear and able State paper, to countenance the idea, that it could 
have been designed by its Authors, to incorporate the Several 
Communities therein for the First time Styled the United States 
of America, into one Nation ? Whether it does not affirm, 
in terms, that the Colonies represented in the Congress which 
produced this act, were, and of right ought to be. Free and Inde- 
dependent States — And whether it could have had any other 
end or aim than what I have stated, that is to say, to declare and 
make manifest to the world, what was the condition of these 
States : and in tracing the causes which had produced this condi- 
tion, to justify before the world the position they had already as- 
sumed. 

I ask of the Constitutional Lawyer, to tell me, whether any act, 
professing as this does, to be declaratory of what is, and uf right 
ought to be, can pnoperly be considered as an instrument ordain- 
ing the existence of that which it declares, merely. — I ask of any 
Pulitician, even of the new school, to tell me, in frankness, 



38 A REVIEW OF THE 

whether, at that time, the delegates of any Colony, assembled in 
a general Congress, could have had any authority to extinguish 
the rights of their Constituents, by amalganiating them with 
others, into one Nation, except under their credentials and in- 
structions. — Should he say, as speaking in that spirit, he must say, 
that they could not have had authority derived from any other 
source, I then refer to these credentials and instructions, to shew, 
that all of them contained expressed limitations upon the power 
of these delegates, by which they were prohibited from doing any 
such act. 

It is not necessary to recite all these papers ; a part of one only 
will suffice. The Provincial Congress of New Jersey, assembled 
at Burlington, on the 21st of Juno, 1776, empowered their dele- 
gates, to join with the delegates of the other Colonies, "in declar- 
ing the United Colonies independent of Great Britain, entering into 
a oonfederiition for union and common defence, making Treaties 
with foreign nations for commerce and assistance, and to take 
such other njeasures as might appear to them and you necessary 
for these great ends; always observing that whatever plan of 
Confederacy you enter into, the regulating the internal police of 
this province, is to be reserved to the Colony Legislature." * 
Words containing a more explicit prohibition, against welding 
New Jersey with the other Colonies, or any of them, into one 
Nation, could not well have been employed ; and yet the author- 
ity connnunicated to the delegates of New Jersey, by these in- 
structions, was even greater than that possessed by the llepre- 
sentatives of many of the other Colonies. If the nature and in- 
tent of the Declaration of Independence, are such, as I have 
stated; it is of little consequence to inquire, whether that deci- 
sive and important step was taken by its authors, jointly or sever- 
ally ; or whether it deserves the name of a joint act, or of several 
acts ; for let the act be done as it may, it was certaiidy done for the 
purposes it announces, and could not have beiii done for any 
such purjfose as tiie President ascribes to it, namely, to declare 
the Colonies one Nation, or the Colonists one People. 

In turther proof of this, 1 will here remark, that during the very 

* See Jouruals of the Old Cougress, Vol. 2, pp. 234, 225, 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 39 

time the Declaration of Independence was under consideration, 
to wit, on the 11th June, 1776, Congress began to take the neces- 
Bary measures foi- preparing " tlie form of a confederation to be en- 
tered into'between these Colonics," * which measure was perfected 
long after the Declaration of Independence was uttered. 

This of itself contradicts the assertion, that we were then one 
Nation or one People. But I will postpone to another number, 
any remarks upon this second great act of our political history ; 
and will conclude the present, by saying, that it results from all 
which has been stated, that the Sovereignty assumed by the sev- 
eral States, in the manner I have before shewn, so far from being 
annulled, was confirmed by the Declaration of Independence, 
which had no other object than to declare their Independence, 
and to demonstrate to the world, that this independence was 
their's of right. 

* See Journals of the Old Congress, Vol. 2, page 297. 



40 A EEVIEW OF THE 



V. 



Norfolk, January 9, 1833. 



In my preceding numbers 1 have attempted, and as I hope, 
attempted successfully, to shew, that at the very commencement 
of the Revolution, the several revolted Colonies assmned upon 
themselves respectively, to be Free, Sovereign and Independ- 
ent States ; that this their original Sovereignt}', so far from being 
annulled, was but confirmed by the subsequent Declaration of 
Independence, which had no other objects, than to declare this 
their new condition to the world, and to justify that which it so 
declared. In the pursuit of my original plan, I am brought to • 
inquire now, whether this Sovereignty of the several States, con- 
firmed as it was by the first great act recorded in our Political 
history, the Declaration of Independence, was afterwards abro- 
gated, by the second act of this sort, the Articles of Confedera- 
tion. I could much abbreviate the labour of this exainination, 
probabl}^ by at once opening the latter instrument and reciting its 
contents. But as my attention has been called to this subject, by 
the very extraordinary and new doctrines put forth in the Procla- 
mation of the President, which doctrines I have undertaken to 
review, I shall continue to pursue the course I have already 
adopted ; therefore, before I examine the Articles of Confedera- 
tion themselves, I will endeavor to clear away all the brushwood 
growing out of the arguments and narratives of this Proclama- 
tion, which I think calculated to conceal the objects of this com- 
pact, or to render them obscure. 

The Proclamation says, " when the terms of our Confederation 
were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of sevei-al 
States, by which they agreed, that they would, collectively, form 
one nation, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic 
concerns, and all foreign relations.'' 



PROCLAMx\.TION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 41 

This passao-e is in tlie same paragraph with, and follows iniine- 
diately after that, which I have formerly qubted and commented 
upon.' Nay, it is actually connected with it by the copulative cou- 
junction " and," being separated from the former by a semi-colon 
only. The leading object of the first part of the paragraph, as I^ 
have already shewn, was to prove, that before the Declaration of 
Independence, the People of all the revolted Colonies, had formed 
themselves into one nation, and had proclaimed the existence of 
this nation in that instrument, which was said to have been a 
joint act, executed by the parties jointly, and not the act of these 
parties severally. Scarcely did this first nation make its appear- 
ance, than as if touched by the wand of a magician, it suddenly 
disappears, and in its stead, we have this new nation, not formed 
by the People, but by a solemn league of the several States, who 
by this league agreed, that they would, collectively, form one 
nation, for some purposes. The objects to be attained by the 
creation of the first nation, and the Authorities with which it 
was clothed to attain these objects, were not stated in the narra- 
tive of its birth, nevertheless it was an august body, the greatest^ 
of all human creations, a Nation constituted by the free will^ of 
its own People ; and it belongs not to mortal man, to define 
either the objects or legitimate authorities of such a moral being. 
But when this second nation is introduced, it is seen at once as 
a rickety monster, as an accountable being without free will, as a 
Sovereign without supremacy, as the pigmy creature of creators 
puny as itself ; in a word, as a nation created for certain purposes 

only ! 

I wish the President had extended his argumentative narra- 
tion of the rise and progress of the first Nation, and given at least 
a sketch of its decline and fall. I feel great interest in the fate 
of all nations, because, I believe that the light of not one of these 
Stars in tlie Constellation of human Society can be extinguished, 
except under direful and portentous circumstances, betokening 
the destruction of the whole galaxy. 

Therefore, I sympathize very sincerely with the unhappy 
Greek, with the suffering and gallant Pole, and already feel anxi- 
ety for the fate of the industrious, frugal, honest, and brave 
Dutch. But when I am told of the existence of a Nation in this 



42 A REVIEVr OF THE 

"my own, my native land," and that it was creatod by the only 
human authors who I acknowledge as having legitimate authority 
to create a J^ation, its own People, quorum far s fui^ I cannot 
but feel intense interest as to its fate. Did its authors become 
convinced, like some Philosophers of the olden time, that a Peo- 
ple occupying a territory of vast extent, could not long exist in 
freedom, and in- peace, as one ]^atiun ; because, unfeeling and in- 
terested majorities, would more probably oppress minorities, than 
any single despot; and therefore, sacriticing their ideas of splen- 
did grandeur, to their love of liberty, destroy the work of their 
own hands, leaving no memorial to tell even that " Lyons was "; 
or did this new monster nation, raise its parricidal hand against 
the prior work of the authors of its own being, and bring it to an 
untimely end, to gratify its own lusts? If " History is Philoso- 
phy teaching by example," the narrative of the downfall of this 
first nation would doubtless furnish some useful lessons to states- 
men of other times. 

But it is lost, " and like the baseless fabric of a vision, has left 
not a wreck behind." 

Then, let us not deplore its unknown fate, but turn our atten- 
tion to its successor. 

The ditference between the author of tliis Proclamation and 
myself, is radical and irreconcilable. He contends, that the in- 
habitants of these now United States are " one People." To 
prove this he asserts, that before the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, they had formed themselves into " a nation " tlie existence 
of which w^as proclaimed in that act ; and that afterwards, when the 
terms of this their first association (called now a confederation) 
" were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of sev- 
eral States, by which they agreed, that they would collectively 
form one nation," for certain purposes which he expresses. On 
the other hand, I have contended, that these inhabitants are not 
now, nor ever were, one People, but always constituted several 
separate and distinct communities, which even in their colonial 
state, had long existed as such, and independent of each other. — 
That before the Declaration of Independence, these comnumities, 
impelled by a sense of common interest, and of common danger, 
associated tiieniselves, not to form ons nation, but by the agency 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 43 

of certain delegates selected by tliem respectively, to consult to- 
iiether, and to recommend to each other, the adoption of such 
plans, as miglit be thought to conduce most to the advancement 
of this common interest, and to security against this common dan- 
o-er.— That afterwards, accidental circumstances, beyond the con- 
trol of these several communities, having deprived them of all 
regular government, they were severally Ci)nstrained by the force 
of these circumstances, to form a new government, each for it- 
self; and so to assume Sovereignty.— That in this situation, a de- 
cent respect for the opinions of mankind, induced them all to pro- 
claim their new condition, and to justify what they had done; 
and that this was the sole cause and object of the Declaration of 
Independence, which so far from declaring that these comnmni- 
ties were then " One N"ation," declared expressly, that they were 
Free and Independent States. I contend further, that the origi- 
nal association of these several distinct and independent communi- 
ties, having for its objects the very general purposes I have men- 
tioned, di(f not invest the delegates deputed to represent them in 
the association, w.ith sufficient authority to attain its purposes.— 
That under such circumstances, it was very soon discovered, that 
its objects could not be advanced, happily ; therefore, it became 
desirable, to give body and being to this association, which, like 
the earth, "in the beginning, was without form." — That to re- 
duce the association to form, by prescribing precisely its intended 
objects, and by bestowing upon it defined powers to attain these 
prescribed objects, it became necessary that the original parties 
to the association should enter into a Covenant with each other, 
for these ends ; and that this Covenant is to be found in the Arti- 
cles of Confederation. 

It will be seen from this exposition, that I concur with the au- 
thor of this Proclamation, when he says, that " when the terms of 
our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn 
league of several States," except, that in order to make it accu- 
rate, I desire to amend this expression, by substituting association 
for confederation. Previously to the formation of this solemn 
league, the States were united by the vague and uncertain ties of 
a common interest and a common peril only. But in what this 
common interest consisted, or what this common danger might 



44 A EEVIEW OF THE 

require, neither was or conld be defined ; and therefore, the con- 
nection to promote these general ends, being necessarily as in- 
definite as were its objects, theii" association was an Union, merely. 
It was this solemn league alone, which converted this general, 
simple and undefined association, into a particular confederation. 
— And here, I must remark, tliat althongli the author of this 
Proclamation, Irad announced in the former part of this very sen- 
tence, that we had proclaimed ourselves a JSation in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, yet when he comes now to give the charac- 
ter of this Nation, it turns out, and by his own acknowledgment 
too, to have been nothing more than a Confederacy. No man be- 
fV]"e tl lis author, has ever considered these terms as convertible: 
but tlie new theory, which denies that these States ever wei'e sov- 
ereigns, can only be maintained by such a perversion of the well- 
settled meanings of words. 

The quaintness and metaphysical formula, in which this aimun- 
ciation is made, is well worthy of a passing remark. The Procla- 
mation says, that " when the terras of our Confederation were re- 
duced to form, it (that is to say the form) was in that of a solemn 
league." From this some casuist might infer, that the purpose of 
this statement, was to affirm, that in substance we had been a Na- 
tion before, but when the terms of the existence of this Nation 
were reduced to form, this form was that of a solemn league; so 
that we still remained a Nation in fact, although but a Confeder- 
acy in form. As the author of this ProcUimation however disdains 
to employ "metaphysical subtlety in pursuit of an impraclicable 
theory," he surely could not have intended to draw himself, or to 
use any language which might justify another in drawing, that 
most subtle of all metaphysical distinctions, which seeks to distin- 
guish the substance from the form under which it exists. 

The new school of politicians must not, therefore, seek to de- 
rive any snp])ort for their docti'ines, from this formula. Yet un- 
less some such casuistry is employed, uidess some distinction is 
taken between a nation and the form of its existence, it is impossi- 
ble to conceive how by a solemn league of several States, said to 
have been intended to form their Confederation, they could have 
agreed, that tliey would, collectively form one Nation. 

The idea too of a Nation formed for certain purposes only, con- 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 45 

sisting of the same people who had previously formed themselves 
into a Nation for other purposes, and uf the co-existence of these 
two Nations, is a conception, which as it seems to me, is truly 
worthy of the hest scholar in the new French school of Eclecti- 
cism. 1 can conceive of one Nation, having two or twenty gov- 
ernments, designed for as many different purposes, and all held in 
due and orderly subjection, within their established spheres, by 
the will of the Nation which created and preserved them ; but I 
freely confess, that the idea of one People divided into two Na- 
tions, surpasses my humble comprehension. 

All this, however, is of little consequence, I admit, if the fact 
be as the President affirms it, that by their solemn league of Con- 
federation, the several States who formed it, " agreed that they 
would form one Nation," whether collectively, or in any other 
way, whether for the purposes mentioned in the Proclamation, or 
for any other purpose whatever, is of no moment. 

This fact can only be learned from the terms of the league it- 
self, for fortunately, we are not to be again perplexed with any 
enquiry as to the charactfu- of the parties to this league, or as to 
the manner in which it was executed. It is conceded that the 
■parties were several bodies politic called States, who not only did, 
but of necessity must, have entered into it, each for itself alone. 
Let us now, then, examine this league. 

The Articles of Confederation -constitute an act so long, con- 
taining such a number of various provisions unconnected with 
each other, that it would be difficult to make any abstract of its 
contents, of such brevity as would suit this occasion. Nor is this 
necessary lor my present purpose, which is merely to ascertain, 
whether it was the object of this instrument, to divest the States 
of their original sovereign character. 

A reference to some few of these articles only, will furnish mat- 
ter so conclusive upon this point, that it would be useless to press 
the examination further, to prove, that the President nn'stakes the 
object and character of this instrument as much, as I have already 
shewn, as he mistook the purpose and character of the Declara- 
tion of Independence. 

The Act of Confederation was agreed to by the Delegates of 
the several States assembled in a general Congress, on the 15th 



46 A REVIEW OF THE 

of November, 1Y7Y, but, as these Delegates bad no antbority to 
bind their respective Constituents in this mode, Congress directed 
that the Articles should be submitted to the Legislatures of the 
different States, and if approved by them, they were advi'^ed, to 
autboi'ize their delegates in Congress, to ratify the same, which, 
being done, the Compact should become conclusive. On the 9th 
of July, 1778, this act was actually ratified by eight States, in the 
mode suggested. They being a majority of the States, and Con- 
gress having information, although not sucli as was regarded as 
official, that many of the other States had ratified, or.would agree 
to ratify it, in the mode pointed out, and being urged to do so by 
the necessities of the country, promulgated it on that day. 

The delegates of North Carolina and of Georgia were not pres- 
ent in Congress, when this promulgation was made, but arriving 
soon after, those of North Carolina ratified the act in behalf of 
that State, on the 21st of July, 1778, and those of Georgia three 
days afterwards, on the 24th of the same month. 

The ratification on the part of New Jersey, did not take place 
until the 2fith of the following November. Delaware did not 
ratify until February, 1779 ; and Maryland refused to ratify until 
1781. — Her ratification completed the act; and on the 2d of' 
March, 1781, Congi-ess assembled under the new powers conferred 
upon it by this instrument. These facts of themselves are deci- 
sive to prove, that the Articles^ Confederation were not designed 
to affect, in any way, the Sovereignty of the States, for otherwise, 
between July, 1778, and February, 1781, the Union would have 
been composexl of parties connected by different bonds, and tlie 
Confederation (if it was such), would have been foi'med by States 
possessing different degrees of Sovereignty. 

Both of which suppositions would be manifestly absurd. 

I3ut this matter shall not be permitted to rest upon inference 
merely, although that is a necessary inference, and is derived from 
the very strong facts which I have stated. 

I will prove it incontestably, by the language of the Articles 
of Confederation themselves. — In the Caption of this act, it is en- 
titled " Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between 
the States ot New ITam])shire," etc., etc., naming each of the 
States. — The first of these Articles declares, that " the style (not 



PROCLAMATIOJ!^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSOIST. 47 

the name) of this Confederacy shall be, The United States of 
Ameiica." — The second Article is in these words, " Each State 
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every 
power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation 
expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." 
— Xow, until it can be shewn, that one may retain what he never 
had, this Article must be conclusive, to prove, that the States 
were free, sovereign, and independent, before this instrument 
was agreed up^n. Should it be said, that, although then sover- 
eign, the ratifying States intended to delegate a portion of their 
original Sovereignty by this act, the answer is, that while they 
thereby avowed an intention to delegate portions of their power, 
jurisdiction, and right to the United States in Congress assembled ; 
in this very sentence they retain expressly all their Sovereignty, 
freedom, and independence. This must be very obvious, when it 
is observed, that the delegations of power, jurisdiction, and right 
were to be made, not to the Confederacy styled the United States 
of America, but to the representatives of these United States in 
Congress assembled ; which bod}', although a suitable assignee 
of such subjects, could never be considered, with any propriety, 
at least, as fit or capable to receive an assignment of the sover- 
eignty, freedom, and independence of the several States, even if 
it could be imagined, that these States were willing to transfer 
the sacred deposit of their freedom to any body whatever. 

I will not Meary the reader by numerous other extracts from this 
instrument, which I could easily make, to prove the same thing, 
that, by the Articles of Confederation, the States, while transfer- 
ring certain powers of government to the Congress thereby cre- 
ated, and retaining their sovereignty, freedom, and independence 
asserted their former possession of all these attributes of a State, 
in declaring that they would not part with them, — But I will here 
close the present number, reserving some f«w other remarks, 
which I purpose to make u])on that part of the Proclamation, in 
which the |)Owers enjoyed by the old (.ongress under the Articles 
of Confederation, is treated of, and, as I think, misrepresented. 



48 A KEVIEW OF THE 



yi. 

Norfolk, January 12, 1833. 

Although in my Jast number, I have established beyond all 
doubt, as I think, that the Articles of Confederation, so far fi'om 
being intended to amalgamate the People of the several States 
into one Nation, were designed to form them into a Confederacy, 
in which each State retained expressly its own sovereignty, free- 
dom and independence, yet there are certain remarks made in 
the Proclamation, as to the character of the Confederacy thereby 
created, which must not be passed unnoticed. I propose in this 
number, therefore, briefly to examine these remarks, before I 
prosecute my enquiries further. 

It is so fashionable now, amongst those who adopt the new the- 
ory, to depreciate the old confederation, in order to infer from its 
supposed defects, the existence of sufficient power in the present 
government of the United States, to prevent their possible recur- 
rence, that I am not astonished at any neophyte to the new faith, 
who follows former examples of this kind. 

But when such things appear in a State paper, intended for the 
instruction of the People in their political history, and to deduce 
from thence their present political condition, I must confess, that 
I expected much more of accuracy in such statements, than I 
have yet found in this Proclamation. 

The statements in themselves, are of little consequence at the 
present day, except as they manifest a disposition, to exhibit un- 
der false lights, facts and truths, which are supposed to have some 
bearing upon the new doctrines. So considered, they are worthy 
of notice. For this reason, I have already noticed many such as- 
sertions ; and as my sole object is Tiuth, I will now proceed to 
point out others. The author of this Proclamation says, " But 
the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON", 49 

operation, we could scarcely be called a Xation. We bad ncitber 
prosperity at bome, nor consideration abroad." Yet it was under 
the operation of the Confederation alone, that the People of the 
United States gloriously achieved their independence, after a long 
and bloody war, compared with which, all subsequent wars have 
been but as the pastiiiies of children. It was under the operation 
of this Confederation alone, that Treaties of Alliance, of Amity and 
Commerce, and of Peace, were contracted with many of the princi- 
pal Pov.ers of the World, with France, with the United Netherhmds, 
witb Sweden, with Prussia, witb Great Britain, and with Morocco, 
which Treaties have served as the model of every other of the 
like kind tliat has since been concluded. But the conquest of 
Freedom and Independence at home, and the conclusion of such 
leagues with some of the most powerful nations upon the face of 
the earth, in the eye of this author, seem to prove only, that we 
had neither prosi>erity at home, nor consideration abroad. Let us 
not rob tiie dead, in order to deck the living. The old Confeder- 
ation was the wisest system of that sort, which the wisdom of 
mankind had ever produced; and but for a single circumstance, 
ascribable rather to the poverty of the people than to any defect in 
the system itself, it would probably have endured to the present 
day, a proud monument of the sagacity of its authors. Let those 
who prefer grandeur to liberty, decry it as they may, their ob- 
jections apply equally to all Confederacies, and strike at the 
root of free government, wherever it may perchance spring up in. 
a territory of much extent. 

I agree with this author, when in this paragraph, he says, that 
undei- the operation of this Confederation, " we could scarcely be 
called a nation." But I wonder why the Articles of Confedera- 
tion should have been cited by him, to prove, that by these the 
States had agreed to form one Nation, if this formation scarcely 
deserved such a name. The first Nation, created by the People, 
the existence of which, ho said, was announced in the Declaration 
of Independence, vanished under the "Presto Begone" of a ma- 
gician who created a second Nation by the terms of this Confed- 
eration. By the^e it was then said, that the States "agreed, that 
they wou'd, Ci)llectively, form one Nation," for certain purposes. 
The lirst nation, when its character was developed by him, turned 
4 



50 A REVIEW OE THE 

out to be no nation at all, but was then admitted by himself, to 
have been a mere Confederacy ; and no sooner did he create a 
Becond Kation out of this confederation, to destroy the first, than 
he now tells us, that this second we can scarcely call a nation. — 
Although consistency is not ever conclusive evidence of truth, yet 
the want of consistency has always been regarded as an admission 
of error, somewhere. Whether this error consists, in inferring 
the existence of the first Nation, in asserting that of the second, or 
in announcing that this last scarcely deserved to be called a na- 
tion, I leave to him and others to determine. At the moment 
when he is thus depreciating the old Confederation, this author 
seems much disposed, to bestow upon it many and far greater 
powers, than its warmest friends ever claimed for it. Thus, he 
says, that it was formed for the pur]:)Ose of conducting " all our 
foreisjn relations." This is certainly not so. To say nothing of 
other subjects; with the regulation of the great subject of foreign 
Commerce, which, in modern times, involves by far the most in- 
teresting of all the foreign relations of every State, the old Con- 
federacy had nothing to do, except what might be eifected by 
Treaties. At that day, however, connnercial Treaties were rare, 
and the terms upon which such Treaties might be concluded by 
Congress, were much restricted, by the ninth Article of the Con- 
federation, so that the whole power of regulating their own do- 
mestic Trade and Navigation, and almost all their foreign Com- 
merce, devolved upon the several States exclusively ; and this 
power was constantly exercised by them respectively. So true is 
this, that the manner in which this power was constantly exer- 
cised by them, was one of the great causes assigned for the 
amendment of the old Articles of Confederation by the present 
Federal Constitution. 

Nor is this all. The Proclamation, in speaking of the Articles 
of Confederation, proceeds to say, that in that instrument "is 
found an Article, which declares, that every State shall abide by 
the determination of Oingress on all questions, which by that 
Confederation should l)e submitted to them." And iunnediately 
adds, "under the Confederation, then, no State could legally an- 
nul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its exe- 
cution." 



PROCLAMATIOlSr OF PKESIDENT JACKS01S-. 51 

Thus a pledge of faith on the part of the States, to abide by the 
detennination of Congress on all questions, which by that Confed- 
eration should be submitted to them, is supposed to justify the 
anthor of this Proclamation in asserting, and as a consequence 
too of this, that no State could legally refuse to submit to the exe- 
cution of any of their decisions. Vain would have been tlie reser- 
vation made in the second Article of the Confederation " by the 
jealousy of the States of all their power, jurisdiction and right, 
which was not by that confederation" expressly delegated to the 
United States in Congress assembled, if it was true, that no State 
could legally refuse to submit to the execution of a decision of 
the Congress, whether such decision was made to settle a question 
submitted to that body, or not. 

But common sense tells every one, that when parties rsgree to 
submit some matter to the arbitrament of another, such a submis- 
sion cannot authorize the arbiter to determine any thing, which 
was not submitted to him, or bind the faith of the parties to abide 
by any such unauthorized determination. 

The President himself, has recently furnished a striking illus- 
tration of this obvious truth, in denying the obligation of the 
award made by the King of the Netherlands, (to whom Great 
Britain and the United States, by a compact as solemn as this our 
league of Confederation, had submitted the question concerning 
their common boundary,) upon the simple ground, that this arbi- 
ter had undertaken to determine what was never submitted to 
him. 

If any one will take the trouble to examine the Articles of Con- 
federation, he will "find that there were but few questions submit- 
ted by that instrument to the determination of Congress. They 
are all stated in the ninth article ; and are such, as to the submis- 
sion of which, no two persons would or could disagree, probably. 
But should a question, unfortunately, have arisen, M'hether any 
matter was submitted, or not, as the parties to such a question, 
were admitted in the instrument itself, to be sovereign States, 
it resulted from necessity, that each had retained the right of 
deciding such a question for itself. — This effect was not the con- 
sequence of any want of power in the Old Congress " to enforce " 
their decisions, as the Proclamation supposes, for mere power 



52 A REVIEW OF THE 

can never make riglit ; it flowed from the very nature of the case. 
No arbiter is ever at liberty to decide for the parties, what is the 
subject submitted to him by them : it is his province to determine 
only that which they agree is so submitted. If the parties and 
their common arbiter differ, as to the extent of their submission, 
it would be idle for him to decide this matter, because the parties 
would at once agree to annul his decision, and to hold it for naught. 
But if the common arbiter and one of the parties concur as to 
this point, and therein differ from the other party, wherever there 
exists a tribunal superior to them all, to that fornm the dissenting 
party may appeal, to determine whether the matter decided was 
within his submission, or not. 

Where no such tribunal exists however, (as is always the case 
where sovereigns are the parties,) it is of necessity, that each must 
decide this question for itself. 

Nor is the faith of any pledged by the submirsion, to abide by 
any decision which it believes to have been unauthorized by that 
act. There is no necessity to "annul" such a decision, because 
if made without authority, it is already null and void of itself; and 
in refusing to submit to its execution, the party so refusing simply 
affirms this fact, and denies the obligation of an act of lawless 
power and usurped authority. 

If this was not so, no prudent individual would, and no sov- 
ereio-n could agree, to submit any matter whatever, however un- 
important it might be, to the arbitrament of another. — For, if the 
submission of one matter, could ever be considered as communi- 
cating a right to determine any other matter not submitted ; or 
what is the same thing, if the submission of one matter to the 
arbitrament of a common arbiter, communicated to him, the right 
to determine for the parties, the extent of their submission, and 
bind their faith to abide by his determination, whatever that may 
be, this arbiter, although designed to be a Judge merely, becomes 
at once a sovereign, whose authority is without stint or limit. In 
the case of a submission made by sovereigns, they would strip 
themselves of sovereignty by the very act of submission ; for he 
who holds all his rights at the will or discretion of any other, is 
no longer a sovereign, but a mere dependent for the enjoyment of 
Buch rights upon this other. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 53 

I have spent more time in exhibiting the falsehood of this new 
doctrine put fv)rth in the Prodamation, than its native defornnty 
perhaps reqniivd. But it was necessary to do so, I tliouf>-ht, be- 
cause it was obviously de*io'ned, to constitute the foundation 
of another proposition, of a like kind, which is afterwards an- 
nounced ; and it was better to crush this monster while yet in its 
ego- state, than suifcr it to be hatched unnoticed, and then to come 
upon us in all the terrors of a liei-y Dragon, bearing death on its 
wino;3, and pestilence in its breath. I have thus brought down 
the political history of these now United States, from a very early 
period, to that of whicli I have last spoken. I have shewn, that 
in their colonial state, they constituted several distinct Societies, 
whose affairs were r.-gulated by governments absolutely independ- 
ent of each other; that the misrule of the mother country in- 
duced them to revolt against its authority, and to shake oft' these 
g(.vernments, but that in throwing off their former governments, 
they did not dissolve their former associations— the Societies 
remained, after the governments were no more. — That the neces- 
sity for government to regulate the affairs of every Society, then 
compelled these communities, to establish some form of govern- 
ment, each f..r itself ; and so to assert, each its own sovereignty 
and independence.— That a decent respect for the opinions of 
mankind, induced them all to announce this their new condition ; 
and to justify the step they had taken.— And that this was the 
sole object of the Declaration of Independence, which so far from 
pi-oclai!ning that they were One People or One Nation, in its own 
terms declared them to be free and Independent States. 

1 have shewn further, that to secure the benefits of harmonious 
desio;n, and concert and promptitude of action, in this their new 
condition it became impoitant, -to confirm their Union by a 
league of confederacy, declaring what were the objects of this 
UnTon, and by what means these objects might be attained.— 
That this was the sole purpose of the Articles of Confederation, 
which while establishing a general government for all, expressly 
reserved to each of the States, the sovereignty, freedom and inde- 
pendence they had before assumed respedively, and so nmch of 
their firmer powers, jurisdictions and rights, as were not, by that 
act, expressly delegated to the government thereby created— and 



54 A REVIEW OF THE 

that it is false, to suppose, that under tliese Articles, the government 
thereby created became an absolute government without lunits to 
its authority ; for although the several States were bound to sub- 
mit to it3 decision in all matters referred to its determination by 
the Articles of Confedei'ation themselves, yet these were but few 
in number, and, the question a,s to the extent of the submission, 
never was, and could not have been submitted by the States 
reserving their sovereignty, but the determination of this ques- 
tion, so far as it might interest any one, was necessarily retained 
by each of the States for itself. 

From all this, I feel myself justified in saying, that the original 
sovereignty of the States, assumed by them in ITTO, remained 
unimpaired, until the adoption of the present Constitution of the 
United States in 1789. Whether l)y this instrument, that sover- 
eignty was then annulled, is the question which I will next examine. 
At present, I will take leave to say, that as the exi^^ting political 
condition of the?e States, is to be sought for in the Federal Con- 
stitution alone, it is to be regretted that the President thought it 
right, in his late Proclamation, to ascend to a period antecedent 
to the formation of this government, in order to teach the People, 
what is their situation under it. There was no necessity for this 
certainly, as he himself has proved ; and if he had confined him- 
self to a construction of the present Constitution, although he 
might have been supposed to err in this, he would at least have 
avoided such numerous inconsistencies, and gross historical mis- 
takes, as are now exhibited every where in his work, to the great 
mortification of many of those who wished to be his friends. 

But the new school of which he has become a proselyte, in ex- 
acting passive obedience and non-resistance to all its precepts, 
seems to have imposed upon him as a probationary penance for 
all his former sins against its faith, that he should not only pub- 
licly abjure the creed whose truth he has so often and so recently 
affirmed, Ijut that he should also proclaim from his high place, 
the infallibility and supremacy of the Pontiff, and that these 
States never w^ere his sovereigns. Less than this would not have 
been accepted as a sufficient atonement for his former offences, or 
as a satistactory token to entitle him to admission to the commun- 
ion of those political Saints, the sanctity of some of whom, is at 
least as questionable, as the truth of their new doctrines. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



55 



VII. 

Norfolk, January 16, 1833. 

The scene is again shifted and the Proclamation after as- 
serting, and striving in vain to maintain, the doctrines of the new 
ultra Federal School, that these ^ tates never were Sovereign, at 
last comes down to the Old Federal taith, that the States, 
althouo-h once Sovereign, are not so now, because, by the Consti- 
tution^of the United States, to use the words of this Proclama- 
tion, "they surrendered many of their essential parts ot sov- 
ereignty," and therefore, "were no longer Sovereign." 

I>reely admit the truth of this conclusion, if its premises are 
correct Nay, I go further even than the author of this Procla. 
matiou ; for I concede, that if the States have ever surrendered the 
smallest factional part of their sovereignty, they thereupon ceased 
to be sovereign; and so far from retaining " their ent.re sover- 
eignty " they have lost not only all this, but with it their treedom 
and iiulependence also. Shew me, then, the transfer by the States 
of any portion of their Sovereignty, and I will willingly adunt that 
all of it is lost. Nor do I regard it as worth an effort, to enquire, 
whether they may have saved in its wreck, any vain and useless 
bauble, to serve as a memorial of their former condition, in pre- 
senting perpetually to their view, the fact, that even this worth- 
less plaything, must now be held under the mere courtesy of an- 
other I care not much either, who the new Sovereign ot the^ 
States may be, to whom their former Sovereignty has been 
surrendered. Whether he is the Ox Apis, who they had seen 
calved in their own fields, fatted in their own pastures, and had 
then in their own folly consecrated as an Idol ; or whether he is 
the great King, the majority, the necessary and legitima e Sov- 
ereicm of every " Nation," which has not yet appointed some 
oth^r Chieftain to rule over it. The privilege of choosing a 



56 A KEVIEW OF THE 

master, is of no value in my eyes, except that if the States must 
Lave one, I should prefer one to many; for I have high authority 
for the belief, that none can serve two masters at the same time. 

But is it true, that these States have ever smTenderecl any part 
of their sovereignty ? 

To answer this question, we must first endeavour to form a 
correct opinion of what Sovereignty is. I^ow, what is Sov- 
ereignty? Sovereignty is supremacy. A Sovereign, according 
to the very derivati(m of the word, is one who is over all, and 
who, therefore, can have no superior. — Strictly, then, there is no 
existing Sovereign, but He who made all, who preserves all, and 
who by His almighty power, may at any time riglitfully, annihi- 
late all. Wlien the vanity of human Rulers, appropriated to 
themselves a name and character, which, of right belong only to 
their Creator, they tried to preserve all then- attributes, although 
limiting their application to a more narrow sphere. 

An earthly Sovereign tlius becomes, one who is over all his 
Bubjects, who may of right do witliin his own dominions, all that' 
is physically possible, and wdiich does not contravene the will of 
his God. Such is human sovereignty, Avhich alone I am now 
considering. 

Founded upon this simple truth, is that great maxim of the 
public law, which asserts the equality of States ; for as all States 
must have sovereignty, and as sovereignty is supremacy, there- 
fore, all States are equal. From this nuixim, do all Treaties derive 
their obligation ; for although these instruments are rarely exe- 
cuted by the Sovereign parties in person, but by their agents duly- 
appointed for that purpose, (whether mediately or innnediately 
matters not,) the acts so rat tied, are considered as the acts of the 
Sovereigns themselves, who being equals, may properly contract, 
which could not well be if the parties were not equal. Standing 
on this well established doctrine of the equality of the States, do 
— "we the People," the only legitimate Sov^ereign in this land, 
erect our head, high as the proudest he who sits upon a throne, 
because we too are sovereign, and like him may rightfully do 
witliin our own dominions, all that mortals may. 

Having thus shewn what Sovereignty is, and proved the truth 
of my definition by exhibiting its acknowledged effects, I will 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 57 

endeavor to make this more manifest by contrast, in sliewing 
what sovereignty is not. This is necessary, becanse, it is only by 
confonnding Sovereignty with something else, that any difference 
has ever aHsen, in\he determination of the qnestion which 
I have first proposed.— Sovereignty is not Government. If it 
was, as all Sovereignty is Supremacy, every government nnder 
the Snn of necessity, would be an absolute and unchecked Des- 
potism ; nor could free governments exist. But as Sovereignty 
and Government are not "the same, we may readily discern, how 
it is, that although sovereignty is the same wherever it exists, 
yet (governments' are infinitely diversified. Sovereignty, like 
truth"^ is an indivisible unit. It may bo enjoyed by one, or by 
many, at the same time, but then all the persons make but one 
Sovereign, as all the parceners make but one heir. Government 
being ainere delegation or assumption of power, jurisdiction and 
authoritv, each of which subjects are infinitely divisible, may 
have as many hues as the Chamelion, as many fonns as Proteus. 

Although' sovereignty and government are distinct, easy sepa- 
rable, and", in modern times, often found separated, yet as the 
rights of sovereignty and the powers of government m^.y, and for 
a long time did, co-exist, and in the same persons, the two became 
confounded ; and it is always difficult to remove any error con- 
firmed by long habit. Galileo suffered in a dungeon of the In- 
quisition', for presuming to demonstrate that the earth revolved 
around the sun, and Sidney died on a scafl^)ld as a Traitor, for 
daring to prove, that government was notlof divine origin. It 
was reserved for American Statesmen to give a practical illustra- 
tion of the great truths which he taught, by inducing their fellow- 
citizens, wiiile establishing governments, to retain their own 
sovereio:nty unimpaired, and so to shew, that sovereignty and 
government were not only separable and distinct, but that they 
ought not ever to be again united in this land, by any who wish 
tolje free. This is the true American System, whicii has been 
but little understood, and therefore has been but imperfectly imi- 
tated anywhere else, as yet. 

Notwithstanding sovereignty and government are not the same, 
yet it is readily conceded, that where the rights of sovereignty 
are admitted to be jjossessed by any government, there the gov- 



58 A llEVIEW OF THE 

ernment becomes the sovereign, and will continue sucli as long as 
it enjoys tliese rights, no miitter by what means they may have 
been acquired. 

The first and highest of these rights of sovereignty, nay, that 
which comprehends all the others, is the right to create a govern- 
ment to regulate, the afiairs^f all the subjects of the sovereign, 
and to amend, alter, or abolish this government, at its pleasure. 
Stripp>ed of this right, sovereignty is but a worthless name : but 
while this right is retained, although the government created by 
the sovereign's will may be endowed with the plenary Power of 
a Roman perpetual Dictator, yet as it lives but by the will of its 
Creator, it would be idle to call such a government a sovereignty. 

When I speak of the right to create new, and abolish former 
governments, as the sure index and test of sovereignty, I do not, 
of coui'se, refer to force. That may be, and more often has been, 
employed to destroy, than to preserve, rights of all kinds. 

What I mean to assert is simply this : wherever a power exists 
in any Country, which power is admitted by all of that Country 
to possess the right of creating, amending, or abolishing the gov- 
ernment of that country, this power must be superior to the gov- 
ernment created by itself, and is the true and only sovereign of 
that country. Alterations of government made by such a power, 
are not pro])erly termed Revolutions. 

They exhibit only a change of will on the part of an acknowl- 
edged Sovereign ; a mere peaceful repeal of some former ordi- 
nance, and the enactifh of a new one, designed to attain the same 
great objects, by different, and, as the Sovereign believes, by bet- 
ter and more appropriate means.— Thus, when the King, Lords, 
and Commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled, in vir- 
tue of the omnipotence or sovereignty of that body, recently altered 
the foundations of their government, by a mere Statute, the alter- 
ation was well termed a Reform, because those who made the 
change, it was acknowledged on all hands, had the right to make 
it. So, too, when the King of France, a few years since, granted 
to his subjects a new form of government, by a charter, wherein 
was deiined their rights and his duties, this was not Revolution, 
but Reform of another kind only; for he who granted this char- 
ter, being an acknowledged Sovereign, had the confessed author- 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 59 

itv so to do. And when these States abrof^-ated the old Ai-ticles 
of Confederation, and established the present Constitution of the 
United States, this was not Hevolntion, but Reform of a kind still 
different, because, it was conceded by all, that those who made, 
might of rii;ht alter. But when the People of these Colonies 
shook off their allegiance to their former acknowledged Sovereign, 
and asserted their freedom and Independence, this was Revolu- 
tion, and not Reform ; for all admitted that this proceeding, how- 
ever necessary and proper it might be, was not affected in virtue 
of any right acknowledged by both the sovereign and subjects. 
Having thus sliewn what sovereignty is, and pointed out the sure 
test, by which its existence and abode may always be ascertained, 
1 will now endeavor, by the application of this test, to determine, 
whetlier these States have lost any portion of their sovereignty by 
their adoption <ff the present Constitution of the United States. — 
And tlrst, by whom was this Constitution adopted ? _ To this there 
can be but one answer : it was adopted by the People. — But by 
what Peoj^le? The President, in his Proclamation, says: "The 
People of the United States formed the Constitution, acting 
through the State Legislatures, in making the compact to meet 
and discuss its pi'ovisions, and acting in separate Conventions 
when they ratified those provisions." 

This statement, although correct in its termsj is yet much too 
general to be received as a direct and positive answer to my cpies- 
tion. Therefore, as I do not wish to take shelter under aml)igui- 
ties of any kind, 1 will say, that the present Federal Constitution 
was not made by the People of the United States, acting as one 
mass, or " Nation," or by the will of the majority of any such 
mass : but it was made by the People of the several States, acting 
as several distinct and independent connn on wealths, each in its 
own separate corporate character, and each binding ils own par- 
ticular minority, by the will of its own particular majority, ac- 
cording to its own established usages, and without regard to the 
will of any other. 

A single well-known historical fact will put this beyond all 
doubt. — Two of the then Thirteen States, North Carolina and 
Rhode Island, refused to adopt this Constitution at iirst, nor did 
they do so until some time alter the government which was 



60 A REVIEW OF THE 

thereby ci-eated had gone into actual operation in the otlior eleven 
States. Yet, although the population of each of these States con- 
stitnted a ratio to the population of all the States, even less than 
the ratio of the iinmber of either of these States to the number of 
all the States, no one conceived, tliat either cf these States could 
be bound by the will of a great majority of the People of the 
other States, or by tlie will of eleven-thirteenths of the States 
themselves. 

IS^or did any one ever think, that the will of that portion of the 
citizens of eitlier of tlie?e States Vvdio approved the Constitntion, 
and wished to adopt it, was not rightfully overruled and con- 
trolled by the w^ill of the majority of their fellow-citizens in these 
States respectively, although, as I liave said, this majority was 
but a smdl minority of all the States. 

This is decisive to shew, that in adopting the Constitution, the 
States acted as communities absolutely independent of each otlier, 
each binding its own people to adopt or i-qject, as the constitution- 
al majority of that particular State thought best. Here then is a 
new and conclusive piece of evidence, to prove, the sovereignty 
of these States respectively; for none "but a Sovereign," could 
rightfully have abolished the old government formed by the Arti- 
cles of Confederation and have established this new government 
in its stead. 

Having shewn by whom this government was created, I will 
next enquire, by whom it is preserved ? The answer to this, is 
like that given to the former question : this government is pre- 
served oidy by the agency of the States. Unless the Stsites pre- 
scribe the time when, the place where, the manner in which, and 
the persons by wdiom, members of the Mouse of Kepresentatives 
of the United States may be elected, there coidd be no such Rep- 
resentatives chosen. Unless the States elect them, there could be 
no Senators of the United States. Unless the States prescribe the 
mode in which Electors for choosing a President and Vic^e-Presi- 
dent of the Unifed States shall be appointed, neither of these of- 
fices could be tilled. Ami without a Pi-esident to nominate, and 
Senate to advise, there could be no Jud<i;es appointed. 

But a government without agents to perf )rm either legislative, 
executive or judicial functions, would be as deformed a monster, 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



61 



as that of a\ liich the President Las spoken in tliis rroclamation, a 
Nation for certain purposes only. 

It may be said perhaps, that although some of the States miglit 
refuse or omit to pass the laws necessary to give efiect to those 
provisions of the Federal Constitution, which require the appoint- 
ment of a President and Yice-President, ct a Senate and House 
of Representatives, yet so long as others do so, the government 
would go on, heedless of the recusant States. I will not stop to 
enquire whether this is so; for even if it is, it does not vary my 
argument, the object of which is to shew, that the Federal Gov- 
ernment is not preserved by its own means, but solely at the will 
and by means of the States. Its absolute dependar.ce upon these 
for its existence, would not be less, if that dependance was upon 
some, and not upon all: nor would the tenure upon which it holds 
all ill powers, be one whit less precarious, if these powers are held 
under the will of a majority only, than if they were held under 
the will of all the States. In either case, it is a dependant thhig, 
and its dependance for existence is upon the States. 

It n^ay be said also, that the faith of the States is pledged, and 
all their otiicci-s are bound by an oath, to support the Constitution 
of the United States ; therefore, it is not fair to reason from a 
supposition which rests upon a breach of a nation's faith, and the 
violation of the oaths of its People. 

This is all true, but it only proves that for which I am contend- 
ing, that this Federal Government is preserved solely by the 
States, who of necessity, are, and must be, the sole judges of what 
their faith requires; and who could absolve their own citizens 
from the obligations of this oath, as easily as they did from the 
obligations of that which pledged their allegiance to the British 
Ci-o^vn.— And here let me beg of those who rely upon this argu- 
ment of pledged iaith, to read the last clause of the thirteenth 
Article of the Old Confederation; and in doing so, to remendjer 
the cases of North Carolina and Rhode Island, to which I have 
before adverted. I beg every Virginian too, to think of Ids own 
oath of fidelity, and to settle with his own conscience whether 
this is abrogated bv that to which I have before referred. 

Havino- thus shewn, that the Constitution of the United States 
was established by the will of the several States, and is preserved 



62 A EEVIEW OF THE 

only by tlie ngency of the several States, I will next enquire by 
whom it may be altered ? 

Tlie fifth article of the Constitution itself, answ^ers this question. 
It will there be seen, that where amendments are proposed by 
two-thirds of both branches of Congress, or by a Convention 
called for pi-oposing amendments, in either case, such amend- 
ments cannot be valid as parts of tlie Constitution, until the 
amendments so proposed shall be "ratified by the Legislatures of 
three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three- 
fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may 
be proposed by the Congress." By this it is obvious, that the 
States who established and who preserve this Coustitution, can al- 
ter it; and the only difference between the powers exerted to 
create and to alter, is merely tliis, that in the creation, the assent 
of each State was necessary to make it obligatory upon each ; but 
it may be amended by the concurrence of three-f»,urths only of 
the States, and amendments wdien so i-atified, will be obligatory 
upon all. In this mode it has been four times amended. If, then, 
these States have created, do preserve, and may at any time 
(tliree-fourths of them consenting) alter this Constitution, and this 
too according to its own provisions, is it not idle to say, that they 
are not sovereign, because they have surrendered many of their 
essential parts of sovereignty by this Instrument? They may 
have surrendered much of their power, much of their jurisdiction, 
and many of their rights, by this Instrument ; but one right they 
have not surrendered, certainly, and that is their right to alter 
this instrument itself, and so cancel by their will, the very act 
their will created, and by which, it is said, they have deprived 
themselves of their Sovereignty. 

This very right to make and to alter government when made, 
is Sovereig*^^ity. It constitutes the possessor of it the earthly supe- 
rior of those who are the earthly superiors of all others, and so 
makes Supremacy in that land wdiere the right is admitted to 
exist. 

1 will pursue this examination further, in another number. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



63 



VIIL 

Norfolk, Januaiy 16, 1833. 
One obvious error pervades every part of this Proclamation 
wherein its author speaks of Sovereignty. Confounding sover- 
eio-nty ^vith government, and graduating the powers of govern- 
ment according to some fanciful scale, he infers, that whoever 
may possess what he considers the great powers of governnient, 
must be Sovereign ; and that such as have not these powers, are 
not Sovereign. Hence he concludes, that as the States, by the 
Federal Constitution, have granted away "the nght to make 
Treaties— declare war— levy taxes-and to exercise exclusive Ju- 
dicial and Legislative Powers "-they are no longer Sovereign; 
but that " the allegiance of their Citizens, was transferred, m the 
first instance, to the government of the United States."-And he 
asks in tnnnwh, "How, then, can that State be said to be Sover- 
eio-n and independent, whose Citizens owe obedience to laws not 
made bv it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those 
laws when they come in conflict with those passed Dy anoxher ^ 
Thi. can scarcely be called sophistry, it is palpable mistake, 
produced l)v ignorance of the great characteristic difference be- 
tween two 'sni^jects totally distinct from each other, by which ig- 
norance the author is frequently lead to confound thein.-If he 
would but have paused a moment, to ask himself a few plain 
questions, h-s own answers to them would have prevented him 
from falling into any such errors. Is any government within 
these States, whether general or particular, whether State or led- 
eral, created bv its own will ? If it is, such government must cer- 
tainlv be Sovereign, for none other than a Sovereign can create 
government. But if it is not, then it is as certainly the creation 
of the will of some other ; and its Creator must continue to be the 
superior of its cicature, unless in the act of creation, or at some 
other time, it has transferred to the Creature, the nght to pre- 



I 



64 A REVIEW OF THE 

serve itself, in opposition to the will of tlie Creator; in which 
cii&e also, the creature may become a Sovereign. 

Now does any government, of any kind, within these States, 
enjoy the right to preserve itself against the will of its creators? 
There is no one to be found, as yet at least, so profligate as to af- 
firm this, akhongh it is appai'ent, that there are some, wlio would 
try to ])i-ove by argument what they dare not assort n- fr.ct ; and 
who at some tin)e or other, will probably offer to establish such a 
right, ^^ ultima ratione." Then, if none of our governments are 
created by their own will, or can be preserved by their own will, 
when that is in opposition to the will of those by whom they were 
created, there is no semblance of truth in the position, that any of 
them are Sovereign: because, they too, are all of them compelled 
to acknowledge a Superior. And the argument which would in- 
fer sovereignty in one, from the want of it in another, must be 
unsound, unless it can be shewn, that of two falsehoods one must 
be true. 

" The right to make Treaties," etc., is not a more dii-ect emana- 
tion of sovereignty, than the right to punish crimes, to prescribe 
the modes in which alone property may be acquired and held, to 
create Corporations (whether for Banking or any other purpose), 
and the like. If the exclusive possession of the former powers, prove 
Sovereignty in the general government, the exclusive ]:)Ossession 
of the latter powers, which are equally necessary and important, 
would prove Sovereignty in the particular government^; and we 
should then see the case of two Sovereigns — of "Two Kings of 
Brentford," But as such a conception has never been entertained, 
except in the imagination of a humorous dramatist desii'oiis to 
divert by a ludicrous exhibition, I presume grave Statesmen would 
not resort to such authority, to prove the verity of their the;)ri(.s. — 
Because there cannot be two Sovereigns in one Country at the 
same time, however, it does not follow, that there is no Sovereign 
there. In denying Polytheism, no man affirms Atheism, simply 
because both are falsehoods. Nor in denying that all or any of 
the governments within these States are Sovereign, does any one 
affirm, that there is no Sovereignty here. Sovereignty mnst abide 
in every State, or it cannot be a State. It abides in this country 
as perfectly as it does in Russia, or in Turkey, not in the general 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 65 

or particular governments, however, but in the People ; and who 
The People are, I have already shewn. 

This Sovereign People might, if they pleased, have exerted di- 
rectly all the powers which, in the exercise of their Sovereign 
will, they have seen fit to delegate to others. If they had done 
so, we should have had a pure Democracy, where, as in a pure 
Despotism, the Sovereignty and the government are united. 

But they did not choose to do so ; and thought it wiser to es- 
tablish a Pepresentative Democracy. It results from the very 
nature of this form of government, that the Sovereignty remains 
with the People, while the government is in the magistracy, their 
Representatives, agents, and servants. Grouping all these mag- 
istrates into two great classes, of Federal and State agents, the 
Sovereign People have said to one of these classes, we assign to 
you the duty of making treaties for us, etc. To the other class 
they have said, we assign to you the duty of punishing crimes 
committed against us. 

In assigning these different duties to their different agents, how- 
ever, the Sovereign People neither impair their own Sovereignty, 
nor create one of those classes of magistrates superior to the other ; 
because, they are all but servants, acting in virtue of the power 
which each derives from their common master, and for his benefit. 
Nor is it possible to institute any comparison between the powers 
granted to these different classes of agents, in order to determine, 
in that way, which is the higher; because, things totally unlike 
cannot be compared. Is the power to prescribe in what way 
alone property may be acquired, held, or transmitted, greater or 
less, than the power to make Treaties ? Is the power to preserve 
or take away liberty greater, or less, than the power to declare 
war? Is the power to forfeit life greater, or less, than the power 
to levy duties and imposts? If we pursue this scheme a little fur- 
ther, and descending from the two groups of Federal and State 
agents, examine the constituent parts of each of them, the subject 
will become more plain. Thus, the Sovereign People, in their 
different charters, or laws for the government of their representa- 
tive agents, say to their Legislative servants, in either class, you 
shall make laws for us upon certain subjects; to their Judicial 
servants, you shall judge and decide for the parties before you, 
5 



66 A REVIEW OF THE 

how these laws so made apply to their cases respectively; and to 
their Executive servants, you shall execute these laws and judg- 
ments. Each constituent portion of either class is so made the 
co-ordinate of and distinct from every other constituent portion 
of that class, not dependant for its powers upon any of the other 
portions, but upon the common superior of all, the Sovereign 
People. Now, it is as easy to conceive, how two or twenty gov- 
ernments may be made co-ordinates of each other, as to conceive 
how three or more co-ordinate departments of the same govern- 
ment may be made so. 

Both cases pre-suppose a superior to all, by which alone such 
co-ordination can be established : for if any one of the classes, or 
of the Departments of either, should undertake to establish a co- 
ordinate of itself, the very fact of such a creation would shew 
superiority in the one and subordination in the other. 

Then, if the author of this Proclamation, wishes to prove the 
want of Sovereignty in the State governments, by shewing that 
they cannot exercise certain great powers of government, he 
might save himself mucli trouble, for his conclusion is a truism. 
None of these governments are now, or ever were. Sovereign. 
But it is equally a truism, or if not, his own argument must prove 
it, at least to himself, that neither is the government of the 
United States Sovereign ; because that, too, wants many of the 
most important powers of government. It is idle, however, to 
ask in reference to the States themselves, "how can that State be 
sovereign and independent, whose citizens owe obedience to laws 
not made by it? " Because, in a Eepresentative Democracy, no 
law ever was made by the State itself, but by its Legislative 
agents ; and if these agents exist in both of its two governments, 
State and Federal, the law made by such agents, is as much made 
by itself, in the one case as in the other. In either case, a ques- 
tion may arise, whether the law so made is in pursuance of the 
authority given by the sovereign People to their Legislative 
agents, to make laws ; and if it is once conceded, that the act is 
not in pursuance of this authority, then no man can doubt, that 
such an act, whether done by State or Federal Legislati\e agents, 
is an act of mere usui-pation, and is not law, although it may pro- 
fess to be so, and wear all the forms of law. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 67 

Tlie author of tliis Proclamation, labours under another strang-e 
hallucination, when he imagines, that the magistrates of the dif- 
ferent States " are sworn to disregard their laws, when they come 
in conflict with the laws passed by another.-' No such oath is, 
and I feel very confident, ever will be required of them. It is 
true, that they are all sworn to support the Constitution of the 
United States, and equally true that this Constitution declares, 
that the laws made " in ])ursuance thereof," sliall be the supreme 
laws of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any 
State, to the contrary notwithstanding. But to make the laws of 
the United States the supreme law of the land, they must be in 
pitrsuance of the Constitution : therefore, if the laws made by the 
Federal Legislative agents, are not made in pursuance of that 
Constitution which the State magistrates have sworn to support, 
these magistrates not only may, but must, if they regard tlie ob- 
ligations of this oath, declare such unauthorized acts not to be 
law, and proceed to execute all the Constitutional laws of the 
State, which may be found in conflict with such pretended and 
usurped authority. 

I acknowledge that I was startled by the boldness of another as- 
sertion, put forth in this Proclamation, and shocked at the moral 
turpitude, which it wantonly imputed to nie and to thousands of oth- 
ers, some of whom, while dwelling upon this earth were ever re- 
garded not only as wise, but as being what is far better, pure of 
heart as mortals may be. It says, in speaking of the States, that 
" the allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first in- 
stance, to the government of the United States." 

I am now so old, that it w^ould be vain for me to attempt to 
recollect, how often in the course of a long life, I have been re- 
quired to give assurance of my fidelity to my native State. Put 
this I know well, that I never gave this pledge of my faith reluc- 
tantly, or with any mental reservation whatever. I always meant 
to relinquish and renounce, what in that oath, I said I M'ould 
"relinquish and renoimce the character of subject or Citizen of 
any Prince or other state whatever." I always intended to ab- 
jure what in that oath, I did " abjure all allegiance which might 
be claimed of me by any such prince or other state." 

I always meant to be what I then swore I would be, " faithful 



68 A EEVIEW OF THE 

and true to the Commonwealth of Virginia so long as I continued 
a citizen thereof." 

Is it possible, that in giving these repeated pledges, I was for- 
sworn ; and that in caJHng my Maker to witness the sincerity and 
singleness of pui-pose of what I regarded as a sacred promise, I 
was but invoking his wrath upon my false heart, and devoting 
ray immortal soul to everlasting perdition ? Has my country 
been so cruel and so base to one who wished to be dutiful, as to 
transfer his allegiance to another, and then to steal from his strong 
attachment to her, an abjuration of the very allegiance which she 
had transferred, and a solemn assurance of the continuation of 
that fidelity to her, which she had already relinquished and re- 
nounced ? It cannot be. The Connnonwealtli of Virginia could 
never trifle thus and so meanly and wantonly too, with her faith- 
ful people. If they have been led into error by her, it is because 
she was first deceived. 

Tell me then, any of you who deceived her, you who assisted in 
the formation and the adoption of any instrument tliat has trans- 
ferred your allegiance to another, and afterwards took this oath 
of abjuration and fidelity yourselves, were you for-sworn in doing 
so ? I answer for you all, for those who are dead, as well as for 
those who survive, that you were not, and for you as well as for 
myself, I throw back this foul charge upon us all, come it from 
w^hat quarter it may. Let the author of this Proclamation blun- 
der as he may, in reciting our past political history — let him 
involve himself in whatever absurdities and inconsistencies 
he lists, in seeking to establish his new theory — let him rea- 
son as erroneously as he pleases, as to the powers and authori- 
ties of his government — all this may be pardoned. But when 
he assails the faith of States, and seeks to falsify the truth of 
their people, he touches subjects, upon which no man living 
should even sportively descant, because they involve relations far 
above his wisdom, even if that was much greater than it is. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has never transferred the alle- 
giance of her citizens, to the government of the United States, 
either " in the first instance," or at any other time. She claims 
it of them all now, as strongly as she did on the 29th of June, 
1776, when she first demanded it, and at any and at every other 



PEOCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



69 



time since: nor can any man living point to the act or instru- 
ment by wliicli she has ever surrendered it. Not one word of 
any such transfer is seen, or ought to be expected to appear in 
the declaration of Independence. Not one word of any such 
transfer is found in the Articles of Confederation ; so far from it, 
that instrument directly repudiates any sucb notion in the strong 
and emphatic words which it employs. Not one word of such a 
transfer is to be met with in the Constitution of the United States, 
which in all its provisions, addresses itself to the People, not as 
the people of the United States, but as the people of the several 
States, the obedience of which people to the legitimate mandates 
of the government thereby created, is claimed, only because such 
obedience has been promised, in their behalf, by their respective 
Sovereigns, the States, in their several ratifications of that Instru- 
ment. ^Nor have the citizens of any State ever taken, or been 
required to take, any oath of allegiance to the United States, or to 
their government ; for Congress could find no authority for doing 
so, in^the Constitution, and therefore have never presumed to pre- 
scribe any such oath. It is true, many swear to support the Con- 
stitution of the United States, but there is no more of incompati- 
bility between the obligations of this oath, and those of their 
oath' of allegiance to a State, than there is between the latter, and 
the obligations of the oath administered to any witness in a 
Court of'^Justice. The oaths relate to different subjects; and in 
swearing to support the Constitution of the United States, the 
party taking the oath, but reaffirms his fidelity to his State, which 
has chosen to adopt this Constitution as its supreme law, and so 
made it a part of its own code. 

But Congress may punish Treason against the United States, 
and the Proclamation says, " Treason is an offence against Sov- 
ereignty, and Sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it.' 
Let me here remark, that the power to punish Treason, is not cited 
to prove, the transfer by the States of the allegiance of their Citi- 
zens to the government of the United States. The author knew 
very well, that even the acknowledged subjects of any foreign 
power, might be punished for an act of Treason, just as properly, 
as the subjects of the Sovereign of the country within which the 
Treason was committed. In this respect, therefore, citizens and 



70 A EEVIEW OF THE 

aliens stand upon tlie same footing. Tlie power to punish Treason 
is referred to merely to show, that the government possessing this 
power must be Sovereign, because " Treason is an offence against 
Sovereignty." ]^ow with all due respect for the legal learning of 
the author of this State p>aper, I will take the liberty of suggest- 
ing to him, that in this country at least Treason is no more an 
offence against Sovereignty, than any other crime that may be 
committed within our dominions; and certainly not more than 
sedition, mutiny, or any other of that great class of offences, 
which strike at the existence of subordination by manifesting a 
contempt for the authority of government. All crimes which 
threaten to distui-b the peace and good order of society (as they 
all do) are offences against the government of that society, and 
against the dignity of the Sovereign by which such government 
has been ordained, for the special purpose of preserving this 
peace and good order. To say then, that Treason is an offence 
against sovereignty, is oidy to afSrm that Treason is a crime. 
But when this author adds, that " sovereignty must reside with 
the power to punish Treason," or any other crime, he says what no 
constitutional lawyer can admit ; because it" it was true, it would 
prove that every government in the world is a Sovereign, since 
one of the great objects in all government, is to punish crimes, 
and Treason is usually put at the head of these, for in the eyes of 
the governments which classify offences, the greatest is that 
which manifests contempt of themselves. 

Suppose it was admitted however, that Treason is an offence 
against sovereignty, and that sovereignty must reside with the 
power to punish it, the learned author of this Proclamation can- 
not surely mean to assert, that the hangman who has the power 
to execute a traitor, or the judge who pronounces the sentence of 
death, and therein gives to the hangman his authority to execute 
it or even the Legislature who i)assed the law inflicting this pun- 
ishment, and directing the Judge to apply it, are all or any of 
them Sovereigns. lie must admit that they are all, each in his 
appropriate sj)here, but the agents and delegates of that high 
power, which by its constitution, has said to its legislative ser- 
vants, Do you declare the punishment of Treason, to its Judi- 
cial servants, do you declare u])onvvhom this punishment must 



PEOCLAMATIOX OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 71 

justly M\, and to its Executive servant, the humble hangman, 
do you execute that which iu this behalf, you may be required to 
execute, by my Judges. Now who is that great power, in whose 
name, and by whose authority alone, all these things may be 
done, rightfully ? Certainly not the government of the United 
States, but the People who made that government, and by its 
Organic law delegated to all these their respective agents, the 
authorities 1 have stated. Then if Treason be an offence against 
Sovereignty, it is an offence against the People who constitute 
the Sovereignty; and the power to punish it, is their power, 
although in the exertion of this power, they may call for the 
action of a common hangman. We are so brought back to the 
former question, which I have before answered, who are the 
People ? 

This number is already drawn out to a much greater length 
than I intended, and must now be closed, but the subject is much 
too important to be dropped at this point ; I will therefore con- 
tinue it hereafter. 



72 A EEVIEW OF THE 



IX. 

Norfolk, January 19, 1833. 

If the fiutlior of this Proclamation had asserted, that the several 
States, bj the Federal Constitution, had parted witli much of 
their power, jurisdiction and authority, he would have asserted a 
fact, that no one ever has or probably ever will deny ; because, it 
is a truth obvious to all who read that Instrument. The only 
question is, do the powers thereby transferred comprehend Sover- 
eignty ? If they do, then the government of the United States, 
the assignee of these powers, is a Sovereign. But if they do not 
that government is not a Sovereign : and as this Constitution does 
not profess to transfer any power, jurisdiction or authoi'ity, to any 
otber, than to the government which it creates, the former pos- 
sessors must still retain their Sovereignty, this Constitution, non 
obstante. 

This results from the very nature of this Constitution, that all 
admit to be a grant of enumerated powers ; and which, therefore, 
cannot conve}' wliat it does not enumerate. Even what lawyers 
would call implied powers, that is to say, such as are not granted 
in terms, but are necessaiy to give effect to others which are so 
granted, strictly speaking do not exist under this Constitution, be- 
cause, all such powers are given expressly by the seventeenth par- 
agraph of the eighth section of its first article ; and of course are 
not implied powers. Nothing could better illustrate the excessive 
jealousy that dictated the instrument, than this simple tact: or 
prove more conclusively, that the sovereignty, Avhich the Procla- 
mation in this part of it, concedes, to have formerly abided in the 
States, could not pass to the government of the United States un- 
der this Constitution. Because, Sovereignty is nowheie therein 
granted in terms ; and it cannot be believed, that when powers 
actually "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" 



PROCLAMATIOI^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 73 

other powers granted expressly, are not left to necessary implica- 
tion, but are made the subjects of a positive grant, that sovcreign- 
tj, the greatest of all human powers, would be left to mere infer- 
ence, and to inference too from the grant of a few only of its 
many incidents, and these not necessary to its existence. The 
shadow may follow the substance by which it is cau^d, but that 
substance can never follow its own shadow, except when hurried 
on by the crazed brain of a madman. 

But this is not all. ISTotwitlistanding it was conceded on all 
hands, that the Federal Constitution was but a grant of enumer- 
ated powers, and of course would convey only M'hat it enumerated, 
yet such was the jealousy felt by the States, that while adopting 
it, a number of the different conventions by whom it was ratified, 
to gnard against the possible misconstruction and abuse of the 
powers therein granted, proposed various amendments to it. In 
consequence of this, the very first Congress which assembled un- 
der this Constitution, at its very first session, acting under the au- 
thority given to them b}" the fifth article, proposed these amend- 
ments to the Legislatures of the several States, by whom ten of 
them were ratified, in the mode pointed out in this article. These 
amendments thereupon became "valid to all intents and purposes, 
as parts of this Constitution." Two of them, the Ninth and the 
Tenth, are in the following words: Ninth — The enumeration in 
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny 
or disparage others retained bj^ the People. 

Tenth — The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to 
the States respectively, or to the People. 

Many reflections are suggested by these amendments, which 
have such direct bearing upon the matter I am now examining, 
that I will briefly state them. The first is, that although these 
amendments appear to be the joint work of Congress and of the 
State Legislatures only, yet in truth and in fact, they proceed 
from the People of the several States. They were suggested by 
many of the Ciionventions of the People who adopted the Consti- 
tution, and in consequence of these suggestions, were proposed by 
the first Congress, to the Legislatures of the several States, mere- 
ly to satisfy the forms of the Constitution, and to give effect to 



74 A EEVIEW OF THE 

tlie declared will of many of the States, in the most simple and 
expeditions mode possible. 

Again, these amendments are not donations, but reservations; 
exceptions out of a grant already made, the power of which grant, 
if not accompanied by such exceptions, it was a})prehcnded, 
might, by%)me possibility, influence the subjects reserved. The 
only eflfect, then, which such reservations can have, is to preserve 
to the former possessors, the things reserved, and in their former 
plight. Moreover, these reservations are exceptions out of a grant 
of political powers: for the object of this Constitution, is to trans- 
fer such powers only. But if so, the reservations must refer to 
political powei-s also : for it w^oiild be very absurd, to save and re- 
serve any thing from the action of other powers, in a grant that 
regards political powders alone. The reservations thus made by 
the States, in a grant of political power only, are exceptions out 
of such a grant, made by them to a corporate body created by 
each State and its co-States, which body is styled in the grant it- 
self " the United States.'' 

Even this is not all. In these two amendments, a marked dis- 
tinction is drawn between Rights and Eowers. The former are 
reserved to " the People'' only ; the latter "to the States respect- 
ively, or to the People." The reason of this is plain ; in this coun- 
try the People have two characters. In the first, they are regard- 
ed as mere individuals and subjects enjoying very many private 
rights: some of which, as men, they derive from their Creator, 
and as citizens they derive others from the very nature of the so- 
ciety of which they claim to be members. In the second charac- 
ter, they are regarded as the sovereign of these subjects. In this 
character they constitute a body cori)orate and politic, all whose 
rights (if they may be called such) are corporate rights: and there- 
fore, are nothing else than corporate powers, which, when apper- 
taining to any body, that is not only a body corporate, but a body 
politic too, at once become political powers. The People as in- 
dividuals, have no political power, although they have many sa- 
cred natural and civil rights. The people as a body politic, or 
commonwealth, have no natural rights, although they have vast 
political power which they acquire either by their own force, or 
by tlieir own consent. Pight is eternal; it is an emanation of 



PROCLAMATIOIS^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 75 

Him whose Will is Right. Political power is of human creation ; 
it may be light or not, according to tlie som'ce from and the 
means by Mhich it is acquired. If such power is seized by the 
strong liand of brute force, it is confessedly, power merel}'. If it 
is acquired by consent, although it is acquired of riglit, it is not 
I'ight itself ; because, the withdrawal of that consent, Avould make 
even sucli power cease to be right ; and right being eternal, can 
no more cease to be, than He whose will it is. I speak not now 
of faith and truth, or of the obligations which they im])ose. I will 
refer to these hereafter. My present piu'pose is, merely, to shew 
the distinction between rights and political powers, which, al- 
though like sovereignty and governnicuts, sometimes co-existing, 
and frequently confounded, are nevertheless separable and distinct ; 
and in these very amendments are plainly set in contra-distinction 
of each other. Applying these se\'eral remarks to these amend- 
ments any one may see at once, the object and supposed necessi- 
ty of the first. 

The People of the several States, as mere individuals, enjoyed 
many rights, none of which had the States, who adopted this Con- 
stitution, any thoughts of subjecting, to the control of the political 
powers granted to the government they had thereby created. But 
as some of these rights had been specially enumerated in various 
parts of this instrument, and then saved expressly from the action 
of tlie powers thereby granted ; and as the expression of one 
thing, is often regarded as the exclusion of all others not ex- 
pressed, therefoi'e, to guard against such effects to the People, in 
this case, the ninth amendment provides, that "The enumeration 
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to 
deny or disparage others retained by the People." Among the 
rights retained by the People, are the right to bear arms ; the 
right peaceably to assemble and consult together ; the right to 
petition for a redress of their grievances, whether real or imagin- 
ary only ; and though last, not least, the right to instruct their 
own Pepresentatives, whose duty it is to observe such instruc- 
tions, notwithstanding the autlior of this Proclamation says, that 
they arc not accountable to their particular constituents, for any 
act done by them, although done in their mere Representative 
character. 



76 A EEVIEW OF THE 

]^or is the object, and supposed necessity of the second amend- 
ment, less apparent, than of the first. Besides the right which 
the People enjoyed as individuals, the same people associated 
and bound together as members of different great bodies corpo- 
rate and politic, enjoyed in that character, many political powers, 
of which they had as little thought of depriving themselves 
respectively, by their several ratifications of this Constitution, in 
this their corporate character, as they had of surrendering all 
their private rights, to the unbridled action of the other political 
powers thereby created and assigned to the new government. 

But as the enumeration of some private rights, might possibly 
be considered as disparaging others not enumerated, so the enu- 
meration of some political powers, might possibly be considered 
as disparaging others not enumerated, especially as some of the 
enumerated Political powers were of vast extent, such as the 
power of declaring war, of making Treaties, and over all, the 
necessary and proper means for carrying into execution these 
granted powers. Hence the Tenth Amendment provides, that 
" The Powers not delegated to the United States, by the Consti- 
tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the People." 

Here let me remark, that the idea of this Amendment is 
obviously borrowed from the second of the old Articles of Confed- 
eration, (to which I have formerly referred) the form of the ex- 
pression being somewhat varied, in order to make it more ap- 
propriate to the new government of the United States. The 
Articles of Confederation were adopted by the different Legisla- 
tures of the several States, who by this league parted with none 
of the political powers, which they had previousl)' possessed ; 
therefore, their reservation was made to enure to their authors 
only, the States. The new Constitution however, was ratified 
by the People themselves acting by their delegates assembled in 
Conventions called for that special purpose ; and by its provisions, 
it transferred many of the powers that the State government had 
formerly enjoyed exclusively. — Hence a difi'erent form of cxpres 
sion was necessary ; and in that which I have quoted, words of 
such broad signification are employed as are sufficient to cover 
all political power, then existing ungranted to the United States, 



PEOCLAMATIOiS^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSOX. 77 

■\vhetlier aLidiui^ with the State governments, or with the People 
of the several States in their hi^'h corporate cliaracter. 

There existed strong necessity, too, for the employment of the 
very words used in this reservation, sii]^posing its object to have 
been like that of the second article of the old Confederation, to 
except out of the grant all powers not conveyed by it, and this 
in favor of the respective possessors of snch powers. Whoever 
will take the trouble to read the Constitution of the United 
States with attention, will find that it uses the term state in 
many different senses. Sometimes it is used to signify the terri- 
tory, as when the Constitution says, " The citizens of each State, 
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in 
the several States." Sometimes it is used to denote the govern- 
ments existing in such territory, as when it says, "i^o State shall 
pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law iuipairing the 
obligation of contracts." Sometimes it means, the People of 
the Tei'ritory assembled by their representatives, not for the gen- 
eral purposes of government, but for some different, and special 
pui*pose only ; as when it declares, that " The ratification of the 
Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment 
of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." 
And lastly, it is used to denote the unassembled People of any 
territory called a State, in their high corporate sovereign character, 
which they choose to assume when they agree to form, — conven- 
tions, to make or to alter government, or to do any other act, sur- 
passing the legitimate powers of ordinary human institutions. 
In this last sense it is used in the Constitution, whenever that In- 
strument speaks of " The United States," meaning thereby the 
confederation of these distinct masses, who have mutually pledged, 
their faith to each other, that they will severally uphold and sup- 
port this Constitution, by all their means, moral and physical. 

The term States being used in the Constitution itself in these 
various senses, it was not only proper, but necessary also, that the 
reservation should be co-extensive with the grant, and should, 
employ its own words. But lest some doubts might arise as to the 
precise meaning of these, the amendment adds others still more 
comprehensive in signification, and of more general use. 

In this respect at least the amendments differ from the Procla- 



78 A REVIEW OF THE 

mation. Tliej deal in no ambiguities or double entendres. They 
exhaust enumeration, and when they have done so, they compre- 
hend any and every possible residuum, by general words. All 
the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitu- 
tion, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively or to the People. They could not define sovereignty, 
for none can do so. It comprehends not only all ]3olitical power, 
that ever has been granted, but all that ever can be granted. I 
certainl}' mean no irreverence, when speaking of human sover- 
eignty I say it is the one " I am," which in this sublime annuncia- 
tion of its own existence, assumes to itself every possible political 
power, and every possible political attribute, which belongs to 
human omnipotence, whether the same has been called into 
action or not. Vain would be all reservations, if the gi-ant con- 
veyed any power like this, since it would authorize the grantee, to 
annul the reservation, the moment it was adopted. No man, it is 
believed, can suppose that the Constitution ever designed to trans- 
fer any such authority as this, to the government it creates, which 
therefore, cannot be a sovereign. Nor can the " Nation " whose 
existence is imagined in the Proclamation, claim any thing under 
this grant : for it is neither made to, or by this Nation ; and if 
it had been, provided the name of this Nation is the "United 
States," it is from their grasp, the last Amendment expressly de- 
clares the ungranted powers to be reserved. 

Then tell me ye casuists of any school, if you can, what is there 
to which this reservation of political power can apply, but sover- 
eignty, including as that necessarily does, freedom and independ- 
ence? Tell me, likewise, if you can, in whose favor this reserva- 
tion exists, if not in favor of the People of the several States in 
their high character of a body corporate and politic, who jwssessed 
this sovereignty, when this Constitution was adopted by them in 
that character ? You cannot say, that it applies to any enumer- 
ated right; for all these are reserved by the preceding Amend- 
ment. — You cannot say, that it applies to any other political pow- 
er ungranted by this Constitution, and which had been previously 
granted to the State governments: for all such, if not prohibited 
to these governments by this Constitution, and so cancelled and 
annulled, are the subjects of the former part of this reservation it- 



peccla:matio]s^ of preside^^t jacksois". 79 

self. And if you say, that it apjjlies to the political powers neitlier 
granted to the Federal or State governments, jou describe sov- 
ereignty itself, the living source of all political power, from 
whence it all emanates, and with which, when ungranted, it al- 
ways abides. — Then, if sovereignty and sovereignty only, is the 
subject of this reservation, in whose favor does the reservation act ? 
It cannot act in favor of the Federal government : for it is re- 
served out of the very grant of power's made to it. It cannot act 
in favor of the United States as a supposed nation or body politic ; 
for its very words declare it to be made as an exception out of 
any powers delegated " to the United States." Tlie State govern- 
ments never had it, and therefore it could not be reserved to 
them. It must then abide with its former possessors the States 
or Commonwealths themselves, unless it is in mibibus ', and once 
put their Sovereignty in abeyance, and States are no more. 

I have now, I trust, defended successfully the Sovereignty of 
the States, against all the attacks made upon it by the author of 
this Proclamation, whether his approaches were made in secret 
mines or in open trenches. | 

I have pi'oved, at least I think I have, that the States were in- 
dependent in fact, before they declared tiiemselves so in their 
declaration of Independence, which instrument was intended for 
others, and not for themselves. 

That the necessities of the country after their Independence 
was declared, which had induced their previous association and 
union, invited, nay compelled the adoption of a general govern- 
ment of very limited powers, which was established by the Arti- 
cles of Confederation, by which Articles the States expressly re- 
tained their Sovereignty. 

That the defects of this Government, (w^hich were probably as- 
cribable to other causes than its own inherent vice,) afterwards 
induced the adoption of the present Constitution of the United 
States, which so far from creating a government with the powers 
of Sovereignty, recognized in various ways, the pre-existing and 
continuing sovereignty of the several States, its sole creators and 
sole preservers. — I have repelled with honest, though perhaps in- 
discreet indignation, the attempt made to tamper with the faith 
and truth of the State and its citizens, in the rash assertion that 



80 A RE^^IEW OF THE 

their allegiance was transferred to another. I have denied the 
doctrine that Representatives were not bound by the instructions 
of their constituents, and that every government must be Sover- 
eign, which possesses the power to punish Treason. Bj all these 
means, and by others, I have sought to establish the continuous 
freedom and independence of these States, who therefore, although 
bound by a holy bond of Union, which none ought to violate, are 
nevertheless Sovereigns. 

Wliat may be the effects of this Sovereignty, in regard to the 
Constitution of the United States, I will next examine. But here 
let me warn my readers, that if any still believe, that they owe no 
allegiance to their State, that their Representatives are not ac- 
countable to thein, that every government which possesses the 
power to punish Treason is a Sovereign, or that by these or any 
other means the several sovereign States have become "a single 
Nation," they will but waste time in perusing what I may here- 
after write, since it will all proceed upon the assumption of the 
negative of all these propositions. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 81 



X. 

Norfolk, January 21, 1833. 

Although I have contended, that the several States which 
compose this Union, are Free, Sovereign and Independent, yet let 
no one suppose, even for an instant, that in asserting their su- 
premacy, I mean to deduce from thence, their emancipation from 
any obligation. A State must be constituted by rational and ac- 
countable beings ; and although but an ideal creation, yet as it 
can only think and act through its members, it must bear tlieir 
character. 

It so becomes a moral and accountable being itself, bound by 
cverj- moral obligation which attaches to man as an individual; 
and even in a hig-her deo'ree. 

I certainly do not concur with the learned author of this Proc- 
lamation, in the new precepts of ethics or of public law which he 
announces tlierein, when he says, "a binding obligation that has 
no sanction, may be broken with no other consequence than moral 
guilt," — or when lie infers from that postulate, that as " a league 
between independent JN^ations, generally, has no sanction other 
than a moral one ; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no 
common superior, it cannot be enforced." My error (if it is one) 
proceeds probably, from my utter incapacitj' to comprehend what 
is meant by moral guilt, or by a moral sanction. To my dull ap- 
prehension, moral guilt appears very like a true falsehood, and by 
moral sanction I must believe is meant physical morality. I 
doubt not, however, that all those who can understand what this 
State paper means, when it speaks of " aggregate character," or 
of "a nation for certain purposes," will as easily discover what it 
intends by moral guilt and moral sanction. 

Nay, as formerly, we have been taught to understand the pos- 
sibility of a constructive journey, and of moral Treason, we may 
6 



82 A REVIEW OF THE 

expect to hear in some commentary upon this pandect, of con- 
structive and so nnaccountable Kepresentatives, and of the trans- 
fer of moral allegiance. 

According to my old-fashioned notions of morals and of law, 
there is no human obligation without a sanction, whether such ob- 
ligations attach to individuals or to States : nor does the existence 
of the sanction, depend upon the existence of any common supe-^ 
rior to enforce it. To me it seems a solecism, to speak of obliga- 
tions that do not obhge ; and that which obliges the observance 
of an obligation, is its sanction, be that what it may. Nor would 
it be less a solecism, to suppose that the sanction of any human 
obligation, was to be found in the precepts of morality only: for 
as these precepts constitute mere obligations themselves, one obli- 
gation would so become the sanction of another. In such a case, 
it might probably puzzle the acumen even of those who can com- 
IjreheiKl the theory of moral guilt, to decide which was the obli- 
gation and whicli the sanction. And if the existence of some 
common supeonor, was necessary to give validity to sanctions, the 
obligations contracted by States, could never be rightfully en- 
forced by other States, so long as the equality of States is con- 
ceded. Yet no man before this author, has ever doubted the exist- 
ence of such a right. 

It would be foreign to my present purpose, to enquire, what is 
the sanction of national obligations, or by whom, or how, or when, 
these may be applied and enforced. 

I may,' perhaps, recur to this subject hereafter. At present, it 
will be only necessary to say that it is not morality merely, but 
the law, that gives the sanction of all human obligations which 
deserve that name. This law must be administered by human 
agents, who can employ none other than human means.— In the 
case of individuals it is the municipal law of their country, which 
gives the sanction of all their perfect obligations. This law is ad- 
ministered by magistrates only: but its sanctions, although de- 
clared by them alone, must be enforced when necessary, by the 
power of mere men. In the case of States, it is the public law of 
the civilized world which gives the sanction of the ol ligations of 
Nations. This law is administered by States alone ; and the sanc- 
tions declared by it, must be applied and enforced, when neccs- 



PROCLAMATIOX OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 83 

sary, by the physical power of their subjects, who, as in the former 
case, are mere men. Thns it occurs, that in all cases, the preser- 
vation of human Rights, must be entrusted to the hands of human 
power. But until this guardian becouies his own ward, power 
and right will not be confounded, any more than the obligation 
with its sanction, or either with the physical force, that may pos- 
sibly become necessary to apply the one or to enforce the other. 

If a State as a moral being may contract an obligation, as an 
accountable being it is obliged to keep its faith, and to observe 
the promise it has given. Should it refuse to do so, it incurs the 
guilt of violated faith, and renders itself amenable to the punish- 
ment of such guilt, which may then be rightfully inflicted upon it. 

By ^^•hom, or when, or how, I will hereafter enquire. Whether 
this sanction prove efficacious or not as a sanction, cannot alter 
either the guilt or the right. The unknown or fugitive malefac- 
tor, who so escapes "unwhipt of Justice," cannot thus convert his 
crime into what this author would perhaps call moral guilt : nor 
must the powerful subject, who successfully resists the lawful 
commands of his Sovereign, and so prevents their execution, flat- 
ter himself w^ith the hope, that he is but a moral traitor. The 
name of the State which violates its faith becomes the by-word of 
the civilized world. The decree delenda est Carthago will be ut- 
tered by that world ; and while nations are but the Vice-gerents 
of Ilim, who delights in Justice, this decree must be executed, — 
not perhaps* in the first, nor yet in the second Pnnic War, but 
Carthage must fall, and fall by human means too, for Carthage 
was faithless. 

With this solemn truth deeply impressed upon my heart, and 
with this awful example full in my recollection, I will proceed 
briefly to enquire, whether the Sovereign States who compose this 
Union, have pledged their faith in regard to it, by the Federal 
Constitution : to whom that pledge was given : what was the ob- 
ject and extent of the pledge : by whom and how it may be vio- 
lated : and what are the legitimate eficcts of such a violation. I 
will not argue the first question. It would be an insult to every 
American, to suppose that he ever had doubted, or could now 
doubt, upon this subject. We all admit, that tiie Stat(^. by their 
several ratifications of the Constitution of the United States, 



84 A EEYIEW OF THE 

pledged their faith, and severally promised "that it should be 
binding upon their people." 

To whom was this pledge given? It could not possibly have 
been given to the government of the United States. This did not 
exist when these ratifications w^ere had : and the very object of 
the ratiiications was to create it, to preserve it, and to amend it, 
when the Sovereign parties saw fit to do so. 

The Pledge was given by each State to its co-States ; was given 
and received to and by each mutually and reciprocally; the 
pledge of one being the consideration of the pledge of another. 
These mutual and reciprocal pledges constituted a valid contract 
between them all, which, whether it may bs more properly called 
''a league"— "a comf)act"— or "an agreement"— I willingly 
leave to the learned author of this Proclamation to decide. Nor 
is it of the slightest importance to my present purpose, to enquire, 
whether a Covenant made by a State, with its co-States, having 
for its object the establishment of government, is more or less sol- 
emn, than if the object of the Covenant had been to establish an 
Alliance, or to do any other act. If it be a Covenant at all, I ad- 
mit, that the faith of the contracting Sovereign parties is mutual- 
ly pledged to observe it; and whatever may be the form, or 
whatever the object of their covenant. Fides servanda est. No 
one can reasonably ask more, nor am I disposed to concede 
less than this,— all for which I contend, is, that tbe promise 
was made by every ratifying State, to its co-States, and by no 
possibility could have been made to a mere potential government, 
which, at the time of the promise made, had not, and by possibil- 
ity never might have had, any actual existence. If this is so, the 
Constitution of the United States, is a covenant between the sev- 
eral sovereign States, by whom it was ratified, to which covenant 
the government thereby created, is not, nor by any possibility 
could be a party. 

To ascertain what was the object and extent of the pledge, we 
must look into the instrument itself to which the ratitications of 
the several sovereigns refer. We shall there find, that to attain 
certain ^reat and enumerated objects, a government was to be or- 
dained and established, endowed M-ith certain enumerated powers, 
for the attainment of the enumerated objects. Therefore, the 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 85 

faith of the parties was pledged, eaeli to the other; to create such 
a government, endowed with sucli powers, to be exerted for such 
purposes — to continue and maintain this government, in the free 
exercise of all these powers, while exerted for these objects — and 
so to support this Constitution. Further than this, it is contident- 
\j believed, that no one, at this day, can suppose the faith of the 
sovereign parties was ever pledged. 

So far the way is smooth. But when it is asked, how and by 
whom the faith plighted by the high contracting parties, in their 
several ratifications of this their covenant, may be violated ? The 
answer seems, at the first view of the question, to be not so easy. 
Yet there is no real dilficulty in the way ; provided our fii-st ap- 
proaches to it are all true and sustained ; for this answer will be 
found but a corollary from the former conclusions. 

Thus when it is asked, how this covenant may be violated ? 
The genei'al answer, is obviously this : It may be violated, by the 
refusal or neglect of any of the parties, to do any of the several 
acts, which the^^ have respectively stipulated, in the covenant, that 
they would do : or by their doing any of the several acts, which 
they have respectivelj' stipulated, in the covenant, that they 
would not do : and it cannot be violated by them in any other 
mode. For, while all the parties do and forbear to do, all that by 
the covenant they have promised to do and to forbear from do- 
ing, the performance is co-extensive with the promise, the latter 
is so fully satrsfied, ef Fides servata est. 

So, too, when it is asked, by whom may this covenant be vio- 
lated ? The answer is, by some of the parties to it only. If all 
agree to disregard it, this is no violation, but a mere justifiable 
change or avoidance of the covenant, by the parties who made it, 
and who may at any time alter or abolish it at their will. — jS^or is it 
of the slightest consequence, when the parties all concur, whether 
the change or avoidance of the covenant is efi*ected in the mode 
therein prescribed or not. For, no one of its parts is more obliga- 
tory upon the faith of the parties, than any other ; and they have 
the same right (all agreeing) to abrogate the part prescribing the 
mode in which alone it may be amended, as to change any other 
part of the instrument. 

The whole is but a promise made by each to all ; and all can 



86 A REVIEW OF THE 

as riglitfallj annul the promise of each, made to themselves, as 
any hidividiial may cancel at his pleasure, a promise made to 
himself.— Neither is it possible, for any other than a party, to vio- 
late any covenant. For if this was possible, the faith of parties 
wonld not depend npon their own will and ability, but upon the 
will of others, over whom they may have no control ; and so faith 
never could be kept. 

Strangers, not parties to a covenant, may by their acts, prevent 
the partTes from fulfihing its obligations upon them : but such 
acts of strangers, constitute no violation of these obligations, for 
none can violate it, but such as the obligation obliges ; and it is 
absnrd to suppose, that it can oblige any others, than the parties, 
who voluntarily agreed that they would be bound by it. Then, 
the covenant entered into by each of these States with its co- 
States, can be violated by none but the sovereign parties to that 
covenant. If this was not so, the peace of Nations and the faith 
of States, would hang upon the will of every incendiary ruffian, 
who lives as the disgrace of the community of which he may be 
an unworthy member. ^ 

Here it may be asked, may not the government of the Lmted 
States, or of any State, or of any Department of either of these 
o-overnments, nav, may not any mere individual violate the Con- 
stitution of the United States? Doubtless, each of them may do 
BO ; and in so doing, would be guilty of a very wicked act, which, 
crenerallv, wonld draw down upon the agent or agents, the conse- 
quences"^of a sanction, they might then probably discover was not 
a mere "moral sanction," although the act might be done, even 
by this would-be Sovereign, the government of the United States 
itself, which, if a Sovereign, could acknowledge no superior. But 
a violation of the Constitution of the United States, whether per- 
petrated by their government, or by anybody else except a Sover- 
eio-n State, is not, of itself, any breach of the covenant for the 
observance of which the faith of the high contracting parties to 
that Covenant is mutually pledged to each other; and this lor the 
reason before given, that none but the parties can violate a cove- 
nant • and that neither the government, nor any individual, is a 
party to that Covenant. When the Spanish Intcndant at New 
Orleans, in contravention of the 22d Article of our Treaty with 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 87 

Spain, deprived the Citizens of the United States of the right of 
deposite in the port of that City, this was no breach of the faith 
of Spain ; because when she was informed of the act done by her 
officer under color of her authority, she disavowed it as having 
been done in virtue of any such authority given by her. So, too, 
when upon a more recent occasion, a military officer of the United 
States, acting in contravention of many of the Articles of the 
same Treaty with Spain, entered her territory with the armed 
force under his command, seized upon her fortresses, slaughtered 
her subjects, and annulled her Sovereign powers ; even this act 
constituted no breach of faith of the United States. 

Because, they too, when informed of these acts, done by their 
officer, under color of their authority, disavowed them all, as hav- 
ing been done by him in pursuance of any power given by them 
to him for these purposes. 

In either case, the misdeeds of these agents, although not 
breaches of the plighted faith of their respective Sovei'eigns, be- 
cause unauthorized and disavowed by them, yet being done under 
color of their authority, bound these Sovereigns severally, to make 
reparation and compensation for the wrongs and injuries suffered ; 
and in either case, such reparation and compensation was de- 
manded and given. 

Although it is true, that the covenant formed between any 
State and its co-States, cannot be violated by any other than by 
some of the sovereign parties to that Covenant, so as to make the 
violation of it a breach of their pledged faith, yet while man has 
free will, he may and often does commit wrongs, and crimes, and 
sins, which may threaten a breach of his Sovereign's faith. 

To prevent this, every person, whether natural or Corporate, in 
every countrj", unless he be a bandit, or an outlaw, is forced to 
become the subject of some Sovereign, who in exchange for the 
protection it is bound to afford, and the responsibility' it is com- 
pelled to bear for the acts of its subjects, is entitled to their obe- 
dience and allegiance. Hence, all in this country are the subjects 
of some Sovereign State, or amenable to the authority of the gov- 
ernment of the United States, which government is itself amena- 
ble to the authority of the Sovereign States, its creators and pre- 
servers, and who whenever they may see fit, can rightfully become 
its destroyers. 



88 A REVIEW OF THE 

If, then, that governmer.t, or these States, are notified of an act 
done in violation of the covenant which the States have all pledged 
their faith to support and preserve, by any of those dependent upon 
their authonty, it is their sacred and solemn duty, to disavow the 
act done as having been done in virtue of their authority, to take ef- 
fectual steps to prevent the repetition of such an abuse, and if it 
may be properly required, to make reparation for any injuries 
that may have been sustained from what has been done under 
color of their power. If any State Avhen so notified and appealed 
to, refuses or neglects to do these things, it thereby adopts the act 
done as its own act, and assumes upon itself all the consequences. 

In a country regulated as are the United States, the necessity 
for such a solemn appeal from one sovereign State to its co-States, 
must be very rare indeed. The acute moral sense of our people, 
the vigor of our laws, the division of our powers, the accountabil- 
ity of all our magistrates, the policy of our governments, whether 
Federal or State, all constitute so many different checks and pre- 
ventives against the occurrence of any event that could justify or 
require any such step. It is possible, however, nay has actually 
occurred more than once ; and therefore, while treating of the 
mere theory of this our government, which theory, although ex- 
posed to very many practical objections (ai^plicable not to the gov- 
ernment, but to its administration), is more perfect than anything 
the wit of man has ever produced, I must pursue it to all its con- 
sequences. I am so led to the enquiry, what may rightfully take 
place, should any State, after notifying its co-States of a violation of 
the covenant perpetrated by any of those who are amenable to their 
authority, meet from them with a refusal to redress the evil com- 
plained of, or should see this their solemn appeal treated with neglect. 
The first consequence is obvious, every State so refusing or 
neglecting, thereby adopts the act or omission complained of by 
its^'co-State, as its own act. It affirms thereby, that the act or 
omission done, or suffered by its agents, or subjects, has been 
done either by its order, under its permission, or with its appro- 
bation ; and that it is willing to take upon itself all the legit- 
imate effects of the act or omission, be these what they may. 

What then is the next consequence ? the high and solemn 
importance of this question, is a sufficient apology for me in post- 
poning its examination to another number. 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 89 



XI. 

Norfolk, January 23, 1833. 
In my last number, I endeavored to prove, that by their several 
ratifications of the Constitution of the United States, the Sover- 
eign States of the Union thereby established, entered into a 
co" enant with each other, to siipiJoH this Constitution— ih^i for 
the observance of this covenant, each State pledged its faith to its 
co-States ; and that this faith must be kept by all. I endeavored 
to prove further, that none could violate the faith plighted by 
this covenant, save some of the Sovereign parties to it; but that 
they might do so, either directly, by their own acts or omissions, 
or indirectly, by adopting as their own the acts or omissions of 
any others over whom they might lawfully exercise control. I 
arn thus brought to enquire, what is the course that may be right- 
fully pursued by any State, should its co-States break their faith 
pledged to it, by doing directly any act in violation of that 
pledge, or by adopting' as theirs, any such act done by others 
amenable to their authority ? 

I present the question in this abstract form, purposely; be- 
cause, 1 wish to avoid, for the present, the investigation of any 
other matter not necessarily involved in the enquiry immediately 

before me. 

Hence, instead of stopping to examine, whether any particular 
act is or is not a violation of the Constitution— or what is or is 
not the adoption by a State of such an act. when not done directly 
by itself— or whether the agents by whom the act has been per- 
petrated are or are not under its control.— 1 have assumed, that 
the act done is a violation of the Constitution— that it is done by 
a State directly, or when done by some other, is adopted by it as 
its own act— and that the act adopted as its own act, is done 
by such as are amenable to its authority. Thus the question 



90 A REVIEW OF THE 

of mere rigid conies naked before us, and so presented must have 
a direct answer. 

As to the general answer to this question, 1 had supposed, 
until recently, that no man could doubt. But as opinions upon 
this subject "very different from mine, have been uttered of late, 
and from many and high authorities too, although my former 
confidence in my own opinions is in no degree shaken, yet I feel 
compelled wdiile reasserting them, to endeavor to establish them 
by si'guments, which, but a few weeks since, I should have 
thought as unnecessary as the attempt to prove any axiomatic 
truth, — in the case of mere individuals, if a contract is made be- 
tween them, wherein the performance of one party, is the consid- 
eration for the performance of the otlier. JSTo lawyer, no man, 
can doubt, that if one of the parties does not comply with such 
a contract, he has no shadovv of right to ask or to expect the 
observance of it by the other party. The failure to comply by 
either, leaves to the other party, the privilege of avoiding and 
vacating the Contract altogether, or of tendering performance on 
his part, claiming a compliance from the other party, and if that 
is then refused, of demanding compensation for any injury sus- 
tained by a breach of the agreement. 

So too in the case of N^ations absolutely independent of each 
other, if a contract be entered into by them, the failure to comply 
with any of the provisions of 1;iie contract, on the part of either 
of the high contracting parties, leaves the other at liberty, to 
vacate and annul the whole contract as to itself; or wiiile affirm- 
ing a readiness on its part to continue its observance of the 
obligations, to require of the other party a like compliance. 

In illustration of this doctrine, I need but refer to our own 
practice and to our own avowed principles. The act of July 7th, 
1798, declared " That the United States are of right fnjed and 
exonerated from the stipulations of the Treaties, and of the con- 
sular convention, heretofore concluded between the United States 
and France : and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded 
as legally obligatory upon the government or citizens of the 
United States." The reason assigned fjr this declaration, in the 
preamble of the act itself, is that " these Treaties have been 
repeatedly violated on the part of the French government." 



PROCLAMATION OF PEESIDENT JACKSON. 91 

But for tliis ftict of violation on tlie part of France, Congress 
■u'ould have had no authority to enact this Statute ; because by 
the Constitution, these Treaties bad been expressly niade the 
supreme law of the land. Therefore, the Statute does not profess 
to repeal them, by auy enactment, but declares simply, that they 
were no longer obligatory upon us "of right," because they had 
been previously and repeatedly violated by France. So shewing, 
conclusively, that the violation of a contract by one of the sover- 
eign parties to it, is sufficient to absolve tlie other party fi'om all 
its obligations, if this other party chooses to adopt that course. 

]^ov\^, surely, no one will contend, that what every individual 
does, and may of right do, in regard to his contracts; what every 
sovereign State has done, and has done rightfully, in regard to 
their agreements ; is forbidden to be done by any of those sov- 
ereio'u States, in reference to their covenant with their co-States. 
It may be denied, as the author of this Proclamation does deny, 
that any of these States is a sovereign. It may be denied that 
tljey have entered into any covenant with each other : or that 
the Constitution of the United States is such a covenant. It may 
be denied, that this covenant has ever been broken ; or that any 
State is responsible to any other, for any breach of it. But if all 
these things be granted (and in the question propounded, they are 
all assumed,) it follows necessarily, that a violation of the cove- 
nant by any of the States, leaves every other State, who is a 
party to it, the right to vacate the covenant as to itself also. 

JSTor can the exercise, by a State, of this right of declaring 
a broken covenant no longer obligatory upon itself or its Citizens, 
be ascribed, with any propriety, to the high and indefeasible 
right of Revolution, which abides with every people. This last 
is a mere individual right, it stands upon the great maxim, sains 
populi est suprema lex. It is the right of self-defence, which 
man cannot alienate, although he may forbear to exert it. This 
high i-ight rides over all others whatever they may be. It claims 
to legitimatize the dethronement of Sovereigns, the severance of 
Empires, the dissolution of ancient Societies, the breach of alle- 
giance, and even of faith itself. But the right of declaring a 
covenant bi'oken by one of the parties no longer obligatory upon 
another, is the very reverse of all this. It constitutes the fouuda- 



92 A REVIEW OF THE 

tion of all society, to secure it all governments of all kinds were 
instituted, and upon its preservation depends sovereignty itself. 
Upon it rests the efficacy even of this holy right of Revolution ; 
for unless man can confide in his fellow, resistance of power 
would be vain ; nor can any one confide in another, if their 
mutual pledges may he broken by one and remain obligatory 
upon the other, against his will. 

The assertion by a State, of this right of declaring a broken 
covenant no longer obligatory upon itself or its people, does not 
necessarily produce any other efifect, than their absolution from 
all the obligations formerly imposed upon them by the covenant 
while it subsisted as such. It leaves thorn, in the same plight as 
to the matter of the covenant, in which they were before it was 
entered into ; in the same predicament in which they would have 
been if it had never existed. 

The covenant, as to the party making such a decliiration, be- 
comes a mere unllity, without even any moral obligation upon 
that party, who, in declaring its exemption from all the former 
obligations of the covenant, so abandons thereafter, all shadow of 
claim to any privilege, right or benefit, to which, it might have 
been entitled under it. 

The assertion, involves no breach of faith on the part of the 
State declaring the covenant broken by the other parties — so far 
from it, it affirms a breach of fiiith by them ; and, as in the case 
of France, it so justifies the act declaring its absolution from obli- 
gations already violated by others. It disturbs no relations sub- 
sisting between any others independent of itself, but leaves to 
them, the full and free exercise of all the rights and privileges 
wbich the party vacating the covenant has claimed and exerted 
for itself alone. 

If they are content to abide by the broken covenant still, they 
are free to do so, whether they think it has been violated or not. 

If they choose to follow the example set, they have the same 
right to do so, as was exercised by those who set the example. 

To the Moralist, or the Jurist, or the Publicist, these wsll- 
settled propositions need no illustration by any example. To 
others, I will give only one, found in our own history. The thir- 
teenth of the old Articles of Confederation, declared, that " the 



PEOCLAMATIQ]!^ OF PIIESIDEXT JACKSOX. 93 

Articles of this Confederation sliall be inviolably observed by 
every State, and the Union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any al- 
teration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless 
such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, 
and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of every State." 
Yet did eleven onl}' of the thirteen States, in opposition to the 
Avill of the two others, alter that solemn Covenant by the present 
Constitution of the United States ; and according to the provis- 
ions of this latter Instrument, nine States only might have done 
so, as to themselves, as legitimately, as did the eleven. 

From whence was such a power, which all concede to liave 
been rightfnlly exercised, derived ? 

Certainly not from the Articles of Confederation themselves, for 
by this very article, the consent of " every State " was necessary, 
to make any alteration whatever in that instrument, nor from the 
fact that nine States then constituted a majority of all the States. 
If so, seven States would have been sulScient; and moreover, the 
old Articles of Confederation might have been put into operation 
in the year 1778, when they were agreed to by a majority of the 
States, three years before they went into actual operation by the 
agreement of all the States. — The power was derived in this way. 
The old Articles of Confederation had been violated in various 
modes, by the refusal or neglect of several of the States, to comply 
with the requisitions and recommendations of Congress, made in 
pursuance of that Covenant. These repeated violations of it, had 
given every party to it, the perfect right to declare that it was no 
longer obligatory upon them. But although this was their clear 
right, prudence and policy dictated, that they should not exert 
this right, until they had provided a substitute for the old Cove- 
nant ; and until this substitute should have received the concur- 
rence of at least nine cf the States. This being done, their right 
of vacating the old instrument, which had been perfect before, 
was then prudently exercised. So that this very Federal Consti- 
tution, grows out of the conceded right of a State, to decJarc the 
obligations of a covenant no longer obligatory upon itself, when 
that covenant has been broken by other parties to it. 

It must not be said, that the Articles of Confederation were the 
act of the State legislatures, and the new Constitution the act of 



94 A REVIEW OF THE 

the people of the several States; and that the latter abrogated the 
former, because it proceeded from a superior power. The people 
of the several States, by a very long acquiescence, had adopted the 
Articles of Confederation as their own act. Under these Articles 
many Treaties had been concluded, many other engagements had 
been entered into, war had been carried on, and peace made, in 
tlieir name, and with their approbation. All these, were acts, 
that could only have been done by acknowledged agents and Rep- 
resentatives of the Sovereignty, which, as has been shewn, then 
abided in the people of the several States, in their corporate char- 
acter of States, and was specially reserved to them as such in this 
instrmiient. 

Therefore, the change of this covenant, made in a mannei- di- 
rectly in opposition to one of its provisions, and against the will 
of some of tbe parties, cannot be justified upon this ground, but 
must be referred to the other. If so referred, the reason of that 
provision of the present Constitution, which confined its operation 
" to the States ratifying the same," even after it might be ratified 
by nine States, is obvions. The old Covenant being annulled, the 
States were remitted to their former condition, and could not then 
be bound by any new covenant to which they were not parties. 

This example well ilhistrates, what a priori reasoning had es- 
tablished, that a covenant broken by one party, may by any 
other party be rightfully declared, no longer obligatory upon it- 
self, and so practically annulled, as to itself, by the party making 
this declaration. — If this was not so in the case of States, who can 
foresee the consequences? Two States agree to exchange difter- 
ent portions of their territories : may one of them retain that 
which it has agreed to give, and rightfully demand of the other 
the delivery of wdiat was the equivalent ? Commercial advantages 
are given by one, as the consideration of like advantages to be re- 
ceived by itself: Is one bound to give, and not entitled to re- 
ceive ? it seems monstrous to affirm these things ; but yet su(;h 
are the inevitable consequences of the proposition, that a broken 
covenant is still obligatory, upon the faith of the party by whom 
it has not been violated.— It will not do to say, that a party in- 
jured by a breach of a covenant, may rightfully enforce perform- 
ance from the other. 



PROCLAMATION OF TEESIDENT JACKSOIST. 95 

This is true only wliere the innocent party is desirous to con- 
tinue the obligations of the covenant, but does not apply Avhere 
he is content to take the other remedy, of declaring the broken 
covenant no longer obligatory upon him. Either mode of redress 
may be rightfully resorted to by the injured party, and his policy 
or discretion mnst decide which he will adopt : but lie cannot 
rightfully take both. If this was not so, the question of mere 
right, Avould necessarily be converted into one of brute force, and 
right and power woidd become the same. The conclusion from 
these premises is, that wlien a covenant entered into between a 
State and its co-States is violated by any of tlie parties to that 
Covenant, any State may of right declare the Covenant broken, 
and so no longer obligatory upon itself. In this view of the sub- 
ject it is of no moment, whether the government of the Uuited 
States be considered as a party to the covenant or not, because, 
if the government is a party, then the principle applies in terms; 
and if not a party, but only the agent of the parties who approve 
and sanction its acts, the act of violating the Constitution, becomes 
by adoption the act of all the principals who approve, and sanc- 
tion it, and so the same consequence follows, in either case. This 
right of a State, to declare a Covenaut broken by some of the 
other parties no longer obligatory upon itself, when one of the ob- 
jects of the broken covenant is "to form a more perfect Union," 
is the right of Secession, neither more nor less. 

He who denies this right, mnst contend, that a majority of the 
States, containing a majority of the People, may break this Con- 
stitution at their wnll, and that the minority of the States and 
People, is bound in good faith, and of right, still to observe it on 
their part. For if an unconstitutional law be once passed, the Se- 
dition law for example, it can never be repealed without the con- 
currence of both Houses of Congress, that is to say, wdthout the 
concurrence of a majority of the States in the Senate, and of a 
majority of the People in the House of Re])rcscntatives. 

Nay, this is not all, for no amendment of the Constitution can 
be made to redress the grievance, however great that may be ; 
for if seven only of these States refuse to ratify the amendment, 
the other Seventeen not constituting three fourths of all the 
States, cannot make the amendment valid. There remains then 



96 A EEVIEW OF THE 

no relief, for an oppressed minority however great tliat may be, 
however cruel and unrighteous and wanton maybe the oppression, 
but to appeal to the God of battles, and to assert their rights in 

arms. 

And was it for this our forefathers fought and bled ? was it for 
this that the wisest and best were convened, to frame and adopt a 
Constitution stuffed with checks and limitations of power in every 
line? T/ho ever wanted any guaranty of the right of Eevolu- 
tion ? Thut exists always ; it is inherent in and inahenable by 
man. Compact neither gives nor can take it away. Free gov- 
ernment, is but a device to prevent the necessity of recurring to 
this natural right. The Constitution of the United States, in sep- 
arating the Sovereignty from the government, making govern- 
ment rest upon a Covenant between the Sovereign States them- 
selves, to which covenant the government created by it, is ^no 
party, but a mere agent of the parties, and in thus constituting 
each party the judge of the observance of this covenant, with the 
right of declaring it no longer obligatory upon itself when broken 
directly or indirectly by any other party, was a proud monuu^ent 
of human wisdom. Kob it of these qualities, and it becomes a 
simple institution, by which all power is transferred to the major- 
ity, who may rule the minority according to the unchecked will 
of the majority, without accountability to any other than itself— 
the thread-bare garment of ancient days, long since cast off, be- 
cause it was always fo^"i^ worthless to shelter right against 
po^ver.— Nay, so sure as effects follow their causes, must a hard 
military despotism speedily succeed to such a government, in such 
a Countrv as this. 

I will close this number with this remark. Wherever the ob- 
ject of the covenant is to establish union or association for any 
purpose, between different parties, designing to preserve their 
separate existence under tlie Covenant after it is made, Secession 
is one of the remedies that may always be resorted to by any of 
these parties, for a breach of this covenant by any other: and 
is nothing more than a declaration of that fact. In 1788, eleven 
States seceded from the Union, establislied by the old Articles of 
Confederation, and established the present Constitution for^ all 
States who might choose to ratify the same. In 1 798, the United 



PEOCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSOI^. 97 

States seceded from the alliance established by their Treaty with 
France. In either case, the act proceeded from the same cause. 
In neither case, did this act produce any other consequence than 
it was designed to produce by those who adopted it ; a mere dis- 
solution of the former bond of union, or association as to them- 
selves.^ ]S''or in any case, can any other consequence rightfully 
result from it, on the part of the State declaring its secession, al- 
though it is possible that other effects may flow from the course 
of the other party. These effects shall constitute the subject of 
my next number. 



98 A REVIEW OF THE 



XII. 

Norfolk, January 25, 1833. 

While seeking to establisli the right of a State, to secede from 
an Union formed by a Covenant, the terms of which have been 
broken by other parties, I was not unaware of the objections that 
have been urged against the existence of such a right, not only 
by the author of this Proclamation, but by others of the School 
of Consolidationists. But I did not choose to break the thread 
of the argnment, by replying to these objections at that time. 
Therefore, I assumed all the facts necessary to present the naked 
question of mere right. Having established this, I will now at- 
tend to these suggestions. :Many of them have been before no- 
ticed and answered ; and I will not here repeat these answers. 
But there is one which has not yet been presented, and to the 
examination of this, I propose to dedicate this number. 

This objection is, that no State may rightfully assume as a fact, 
that the Covenant has been broken by any of its co-States, or act 
upon such an assumption, without violating its own faith : because 
the covenant itself has provided an arbiter to decide all such 
questions, by whose decisions the faith of all the parties must be- 
bound. Tliis arbiter is said to be the Supreme Court of the. 
United States. To this objection, which is founded upon the'" 
supposed existence of a common arbiter, authorized and capable 
to decide all infractions of the Constitution, of which any State 
may have cause to complain, many answers may be given, all 
equally conclusive to shew, that no such arbiter, clothed with such 
authority, either does, or ought to be expected to exist. 

The first of these answers is, that according to no legal possi- 
bility, could the case supposed to exist, ever be presented to the 
Supreme Court for its decision, even if the sovereign parties were 
content to abide by that decision.— The Judges of the Supreme 
Court, like all other Judges, are appointed to decide " cases," and 



PROCLAMATlOlSr OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 99 

not to amuse themselves or to edify mankind (as the President 
seeks to do in this Proclamation), with obiter dicta, or with pub- 
lic Lectures, communicating the results of their lucubrations upon 
mere questions of law, of politics, or of any other art or Science. 
These cases, too, according to the very terms of the Constitution, 
must be " cases in law and equity," and we have the authority of 
this court itself, for saying that there cannot exist any case in law 
or equity, but one presented to a Court by the representations of 
parties. The law professor in every College, nay, the very under- 
graduates of his Class, may deliver theses and dissertations upon 
questions of Sovereigntv, of Politics, or of law, and may amuse 
and improve themselves by imagining suits brought by John Doe 
versus Richard Roe, to try these questions. But it would be a 
high contempt of every com't, to attempt to steal frc^m it an opin- 
ion, upon any question presented in a case brought by such imag- 
inary parties ; and not a less contempt of public justice, if a judge 
should wander out of the case before him, to prejudge some other, 
or to determine any mere abstract proposition not necessary to 
the decision of the matter submitted by the parties to his deter- 
mination. — Now, the case supposed to exist, is the case of a Cov- 
enant of Union, believed by one of the parties to be violated by 
the government of the United States, the agent of all the parties. 
In such a case, the act complained of being already done by the 
government, the United States would have no need to become 
actors, or to go before any court to assert the power that has been 
already exerted ; and it would be dithcult to find the authority 
^ under which an_y one, as an actor, may implead the United States 
in their own courts. 

But here it may be said, perhaps, as is often said, that the gov- 
ernment of the United States can only act by Individuals, and 
upon Individuals ; and as the courts are always open to such par- 
ties, all questions of constitutional right may so readily be brought 
before the Supreme Court. To this commonplace assertion, I 
oppose a flat denial. The evil complained of, may not be the 
consequence of any act whatever, but of a wilful omission to act, 
on the part of the government. In such a case, it cannot be pre- 
tended, that there is any individual, to whom the aggrieved suf- 
ferer may resort for redress, by a suit in court — or the evil com- 



100 A EEVIEW OF THE 

plained of, may be an act, which, although palpably wrong, may 
not require the agency of any individual; or although wantonly 
oppressiv^e and cruelly unjust upon all the inhabitants of a State, 
may nevertheless, like every common nuisance, be injurious to no 
one of them in particular, and therefore would be an act not to 
be redressed in any private suit. Suppose for example. Congress 
should pass a law giving a preference to the ports of one State 
over those of another, which they are expressly forbidden to do 
in the very terms of the Constitution itself; what Individual could 
sue, or what Individual might he implead, for the perpetration of 
an act so ruinous to the injured State? 

Even in cases where the Coui'ts might take cognizance of the 
act done, because done by some Individual to some other Indi- 
Yidual, the judgement in such a case could bind none but the 
parties to the suit. It would not repeal the iniconstitutional act; 
and might not even furnish any compensation to the Individual 
injured. — Some agent of the law-makers in execution of their 
orders, which are in direct violation of the Constitution, does me 
a great injury. I sne him. The court agrees with me, that the 
act was lawless and unauthorized. 

The jury awards an amount of damages to me as a just com- 
pensation for the wrong I have sustained. The Court gives me a 
judgement against him for that sura. But the agent is insolvent 
or runs away, and I cannot get the intended compensation. Will 
any one say, that the Coui't can compel those by whose orders 
the wncked deed was done, and to test whose authority for direct- 
ing it to be done, the suit was brought, to pay me ? Certainly 
not. I may petition them to do so, but if they reject my peti- 
tion, the arm of the Judiciary is impotent to obtain for me the 
relief to which the Court itself has said I was entitled — even if 
the judgement proves efficacious in my case, that judgement can- 
not prevent the perpetration of a similar outrage upon me or my 
neighbour the next day, under the same usurped authority. 

The judgement does not repeal the law, but declares simply, 
that it constitutes no defence to the defendant in the particular 
case brought before the Court by the parties then litigant therein. 
So that until the Legislature will be graciously pleased to rei)eal 
their law, every Individual of the State, may be compelled to go 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 101 

through the same tedious and expensive proceedings, and to incur 
the same hazards, in order to obtain relief against an act of the 
government which has been ah'eady decided by the supposed 
arbiter to be an unar.thorized usurpation of kwless power. Now 
what a strange arbiter must he be, whose decision, if in favor of 
one of the parties, is binding and obligatory, but if made against 
that party, is of no avail to terminate the subject of diiference. 

The next answer to this objection is this : where a case in 
law or equity is properly brought before the Court, by actual 
suitors, if in the progress of this suit, it is found to involve a 
question of the mere discreet exercise of political power con- 
fessedly granted, the Judges themselves acknowledge, that this 
question the}' are incompetent to decide, but as to all such 
matter, they are bound jurare per ver'ba magistri ; and, to say, as 
Judges, that whatever is, is right, although as Individuals, every 
one of them may know it is not so. While doubt exists, whether 
the political power exercised is granted or not, the Court may 
give an opinion upon the subject. But let it be once conceded, 
that the power has been granted by the Constitution and the 
Court is then compelled to say, that it has nothing to do with the 
question of policy, nor is authorized to ask, why such power has 
been exerted. 

If Congress declare a war, although for the most unrighteous 
purpose for which war ever was declared by the veriest tyrant 
that ever disgraced a throne, the Judiciary must apply the sanc- 
tions of the law, to all acts done contrary to the wicked will of 
the Legislature. 

If tlie President and Senate make Treaties, sapping the very 
foundations of the Constitution, the Judiciary cannot declare 
them void, or prevent their execution by the executive. If Con- 
gress wantonly levy duties and imposts for any purpose whatever, 
the Judicial power is helpless to afford relief 

They cannot injoin the marching of armies, the sailing of fleets, 
the slaughter of innocent men, the levy of taxes, or the execu- 
tion of Treaties. 

Tet it is precisely in such cases, that the interposition of the 
Sovereign parties to the Covenant, will, probably, ever be neces- 
sary. 



102 A REVIEW OF THE 

It is idle, then, to saj, that tliey may not interpose even in 
these cases, at least for the reason given. For the very founda- 
tion of the objection to such interposition, is, that as there is a 
common arbiter appointed to decide the case, the pai'ties may 
not rightfully assume to decide it, each for itself. 

The next answer to this objection is, that the evil complained 
of may be the act of the Judiciary itself, the enforcement of the 
Sedition law for example, or the application of the common law 
of England, as a criminal code, to the Citizens of the United 
States. Both these cases have occurred. Here, it would be 
monstrous, to refer to the Judiciary to decide whether the Judi- 
ciary itself had done right ; and yet the objection applies equally 
to all cases. 

Another answer is, that in this govei'nment, composed as it is 
of co-ordinate departments, there exists no I'easou why more 
respect should be paid to the acts of one of these departments, 
than to thase of any other ; and if it is admitted, that neither of 
these departments is bound by the act of its co-ordinate, it would 
be strange indeed to say, that the sovereign of all was bound by 
such an act. ISTow, the objection itself asserts, that the Judiciary 
is not bound b}^ the acts of the Legislature or of the Executive ; 
and no one, it is believed, will contend that either of the other 
departments is bound by the Judgements of the Judiciary, how- 
ever obligatory these may be upon the parties. 

I speak not of courtesy and respect, but of obligation merely. 
Should the Judiciary declare an act of the Legislature void, such 
a declaration, as I have already said, cannot repeal the law, 
although it may prevent its application to the particular case sub 
Judice. Congress may establish other Courts or other Judges to 
execute the law; or the President and Senate, in execution of 
such laW'S, may appoint additional Judges of the Supreme Court, 
who may differ from their associates and over-rule the past de- 
cision in the first ne"w case, that comes before the Court. Nay 
the House of Representatives may impeach and the Senate con- 
demn the Judges, for this very decision given in violation of the 
law enacted by them. 

I do not mean to say, that any of these things would be right : 
but when reasoning upon the case of a violated Constitution, I 



PROCLAMATION^ OF PRESIDENT JACKSOI^r. 103 

have a right to suppose, that all legal means would be employed 
by the violators, to make their violation effectual ; and so to 
prove, that the Judiciary cannot bind the Legislature.— We 
have the authority of the President himself for saying, that^ he 
feels himself as much bound by his oath to support the Constitu- 
tion as any one else can do; and therefore, if his agency is 
required, whether by the Legislature or the Judiciary, to do any 
act which he believes unconstitutional, he will not be made to 
sin against his own conscience and to violate his oath. His new 
partisans used to censure him bitterly for this assertion : but yet 
he never made one more moral, legal, or constitutional than 
it is. This is a government of concurring powers, its departments 
are all co-ordinates, nor can any one of them move far in any 
direction, without encountering its fellow, by whose concurrence 
alone, it may proceed in that way. 

Of all these departments, the Judiciary is the weakest, because, 
it cannot act until invited to do so, its sphere of action is very 
limited, nor can it do any positive act, without the permission of 
the Legislature, and the co-operation of the Executive. 

But lastly, can the human mind conceive a more audacious 
proposition, than that which suggests, that in a controversy 
between the parties to a Covenant, by which covenant an agent 
is created, where the matter in dispute between the principals, 
regards the authority exerted by the agent, the decision of this 
controversy must be referred to the agent himself? The very 
exertion of the authority by the agent, is a decision that he 
believes he may rightfully do so ; and after this, it is gravely pro- 
posed, to leave "the matter to the final arbitrament of one who has 
already decided it, and who has decided it, too, with the approba- 
tion of the very persons who proposed such a reference. In trans- 
actions between man and man, none could hesitate what name to 
bestow upon such a proposition : but where the Sovereignty of 
the States and the freedom of their people is concerned, a gross 
fraud is metamorphosed into a political theory only. Nor will 
the case be changed materially if the nominated arbiter has never 
yet decided the question, provided that arbiter be the Supreme 
Court ; this arbiter is not even given by lot. It is appointed by 
the supposed wrong doer, paid by him, accountable to him, sub- 



104 A REVIEW OF THE 

ject at any moment to be punished and cashiered by him, and 
this too, for giving the very decision its conscience might prompt. 
Thus, matters which would constitute vahd and legal objections, 
to witnesses, to Jurors, and to the Judges themselves, in the most 
trifling controversy between man and man, are to be overlooked 
and disregarded, in the support of a new theory, which seeks to 
constitute the Federal government the sole Judge of its own 
power. 

I have great respect for the Judiciary of every country, but no 
law3'er or historian can tell, in what age or in what country, 
the Judiciary have ever been able, even where it was willing, to 
protect the rights of the people against the usurpations of Govern- 
ment. England has long been blessed with a Judiciary, composed 
of men, whose intelligence, whose integrity, and whose firmness, 
would not suffer in comparison with that of any others who have 
ever been or are now on earth. But when or who of these 
Judges have ever been able to save the privileges of the people 
from tlie prerogatives of the crown, unless the Judiciary was 
sustained by another branch of the government? And how 
many examples are there, of acts of Parliament made for the 
special purpose of saving the people from the Judiciary ? For 
the Judiciary of the United States, I entertain at least as much 
respect as I do for any other Judiciary, I will not say more; 
and I cannot say less. With the individual Judges, I have 
notliing to do. They shall all be, if any one thinks so, what 
some of them certainly are, " like Mansfield Avise, and as old 
Foster just." But all must know that the robes of ofiice do not 
cover angels, but mere men, as prone to err, as any other men of 
equal intelligence, of equal purity, and of equal constancy. We 
all know, too, that some of the supreme Judges of the United 
States, have not thouglit it unbecoming their high places, to 
accept Foreign Missions, to present themselves as candidates for 
other offices, and to enter into newspaper disquisitions upon party 
topics. I do not mean to blame them for such things, but merely 
to shew from such facts, that the rights of sovereign States, when 
assailed by the government of the United States, could not be 
safely confided to a forum so constituted, even if it was possible 
that it could take cognizance of the subject. Nor can he be con- 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDEIS^T JACKSOIST. 105 

sidered as a discreet friend to the Judiciary, I should think, who 
desired to embark it in this fearful strife. 

I have answered this first objection, founded upon the sug- 
gestion, that the Supreme Court of the United States is the com- 
mon arbiter appointed to decide all questions that may arise 
between a State and its co-States, touching the violation of their 
mutual covenant. My answer to the remaining objections I must 
postpone to another number. 



106 A EEVIEW OF THE 



XIII. 

Norfolk, January 30, 1833. 

A VEEY careful examination of the late Proclamation presents 
to my view no other objection, there urged, to this riglit of seces- 
sion, than such as I have already noticed. 

The summary of its argument, and very nearly in its own 
words in this. — Each State has expressly parted with so many 
powers, as to constitute it jointly with the other States, a single 
nation. In becoming parts of a nation, the States surrendered 
many of their essential rights of sovereignt,y, and so were no 
longer sovereign ; the allegiance of their citizens being trans- 
ferred to the government of the United States. But this govern- 
ment thereupon became tiieir sovereign, because it can punish 
Treason, which is an offence against sovereignty, and sovereignty 
must reside with the power to punish it. Moreover, the Consti- 
tution of the United States forms a government. Every govern- 
ment has a sanction expressed or implied, therefore, a govern- 
ment has a right by the law of self-defence, to pass acts for 
punishing offences against its authority, unless that right is modi- 
fied, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our 
system, although the right is modified in the case of Treason, 
yet authority is expressly given, to pass all laws necessary to 
carry the powers of government into effect. — Hence, no State of 
this Union may secede, because such secession would destroy the 
Unity of the ISTation, any attempt to do which act, would be an 
offence against the sovereignty of the government, and might 
be properly punished at its own discretion. 

In reply to this argument, I have already endeavoured to shew, 
that these States do not, and never did, constitute a single nation : 
but are, as they ever have been since they assumed to be States, 
free and sovereign States, not consolidated into one nation, but 
united only by a written covenant of Union, which w^e call the 
Constitution of the United States. That the government formed 
by this Constitution, so far from being a sovereign, is a mere 
creature of the will of these States, subject to amendment, and 
rightful destruction at their pleasure, endowed with but limited 



PROCLAMATIOISr OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 107 

pawers, that may be properly exerted for tlie attainment of enu- 
merated ol)jects only. And so far from possessin<^ this natural 
right of self-defence, it is not even a party to the Covenant under 
which it exists, nor may rightfully exercise any one of its granted 
powers against any one of these States, its creators, although 
it may properly do so against their Citizens, when they are 
acting without the authority of their State, the only sovereign to 
whom they owe allegiance. That the union of the States thus 
resting npon a covenant entered into by every State with its 
co-States, when the terms of this Covenant are supposed to be 
broken by any of them, as there is no common arbiter to decide 
between the parties, it is of necessity, that each State must judge 
for itself, ancl act as its own judgement may dictate. 

If in the honest exercise of this judgement any sovereign State 
declares the covenant, broken by its co-States, and chooses to dis- 
solve the Union thereby established, for this cause, she has the 
perfect right to do so ; and this makes secession from the Union, 
as to that party only. 

I will not repeat the arguments by which these several posi- 
tions have been maintained, but will follow my conclusion to all 
its consequences. 

AYhen a sovereign State decides, that the Covenant of Union 
which formerly bound her to her co-States, has been broken by 
them, and is therefore annulled as to herself, it is clear, that these 
her co-States, are not bound by her decision. They are then 
called upon to decide several questions, of a very difierent charac- 
ter, each for itself also. 

The first of these involves their faith. Has that been broken 
as is averred ? Sliould this be so, according to the honest convic- 
tion of any of the co-States, such State, as a moral and account- 
able being, is bound to acquiesce in the decision made by the first 
party, which is so acknowledged to be right. But if acting under 
its accountability, it honestly believes, that its faith has not been 
violated as is averred, a second question is presented. Is it better, 
while repelling the charge of violated faith, to acquiesce in the 
determination of the first party to annul the covenant as to itself? 
This question also, each of the co-States must decide for them- 
selves respectively. 

The subject now becomes a matter of naked policy, which like 



108 A EEVIEW OF THE 

everj other question of mere expediency, ranst depend upon all 
the circumstances existing in the case. This question appertains 
to the Statesman, the mere theorist can neither comprehend, or 
hope to decide it, correctly ; and, therefore, it would be very for- 
eign to my present purpose. 

But if after examining all the circumstances of the case, in all 
their different relations and probable effects, the co-States, whose 
covenant has been annulled, wrongfully as they may believe, de- 
termine nevertheless to acquiesce in the act vacating it as to the 
other party, the difference is at an end, — each party concurs, al- 
though for different reasons, in the same purpose, and no collision 
will take place between them. 

Such was the course pursued by tlie States in IT88, when the 
old Articles of Confederation were annulled by the act of eleven 
of the States, who then seceded from the Union established there- 
by. And such has been the course pursued in vei-y many other 
cases of Union and alliance that it would be tedious here to enu- 
merate, but to which the recollection of every reader of history 
will at once recur. But if after a due examination of the subject 
in all its bearings the party of which I am now speaking, thinks 
itself unjustly aggrieved by the act of its co-State in annulling 
their mutual covenant, and seceding from the Union thereby es- 
tablished, and that it is expedient to push this difference to war, 
unquestionably it may wage war ; and may so impose upon the 
other party jjie necessity of submitting to its dictation, or of de- 
fending itself by the same means. 

Such a war, as to the party with whom alone it can commence, 
will differ from every other that has before occurred from the be- 
ginning to that day ; because, even by the most complete success 
its avowed object can never be attained. 

Independence, conquest, reparation of wrongs, security, punish- 
ment of indignity offered, may all be achieved by successful war ; 
but victory can never make union, or I'epair the breach of its 
broken covenant. It behooves the Statesman, then, to deliberate 
well, before he makes a war for any unattainable object. Should 
the seceding partj^ prove successful in the contest, it will so 
maintain its independence, and may then agree to enter into an- 
other Covenant of Union, " laying its foundations on such princi- 
ples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 



PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 



109 



seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness," but this 
will be a new covenant.— Should the other party prove successful, 
it may conquer the territory, exterminate its inhabitants, change 
all the institutions of the seceding States, nay, do whatever else it 
hsts, and which is possible; for who shall give law to conquest? 

But it cannot revive the old Covenant of Union. That is gone 
forever, and can no more be recalled than yesterday. 

If the Yictor, iu his clemency, chooses to spare the lives of his 
conquered enemies, to permit them to enjoy their former religion, 
and laws, and civil institutions, nay, to occupy the conquered 
country still, he may win the thanks of the vanquished, and per- 
haps beget in them a sense of gratitude towards the generous 
chief wh^o has been thus forbearing and kind to a fallen foe. But 
let none mistake the character of the sentiment so produced. It 
is loyalty not patriotism ; and let those beware of the loyalty of 
the grateful Mameluke, who may wish thereafter to harm his kind 

conqueror. _ i i • 

A subdued people have ever been the great agents in subaumg 

others. 

Extinguis-h any one, even the smallest of these now sovereign 
States, alid rely upon it, many others wiU soon share their fate. 
A majority may subdue a minoiity, probably. They can only do 
so however, by means of force, which must be guided by a man ; 
and if their chief is prudent, the subdued minority will as certain- 
ly unite to make him a military despot, as the people of Rome 
proclaimed the power of a Dictator to escape from the thraldom 
of an overbearing and selfish Senate. 

Will the Victors seek to avert this consequence, by proposing 
to admit the conquered State into their Union again ? She must 
come if they sav so, but the Union thereupon becomes, to all in- 
tents and purposes, a new covenant. The rights of the conquered 
State are then derived to her, under the gracious gift of her con- 
querors, and not from her own free and sovereign will. 

The old Covenant of Union made and sustained by equal and 
independent States, gives place to one of a very different c-harac- 
ter, in which there can be no mutual confidence, because it rests 
no longer upon mutual consent. Many generations must pass 
away, before any subdued people ought to be trusted as a compo- 
nent part of the Union by which they have been subdued. A 



110 A EETIEW OF THE 

King may make conquests, and by many means may attach his 
conquered subjects to his person, and win their loyalty to his 
Crown ; for his people are all subjects, and in his eyes, are all en- 
titled to Ills protection alike. But you had as well insert some 
deadly poison into the veins of an animal, and ex]oect it to live in 
health, as in a Eepresentative Democracy, to admit immediately, 
the Eepresentatives of a conquered people to become parts of its 
Union, and expect such a 2:overnment to last lono-. 

Then, the war waged to revive a broken covenant of Union, 
however successful may be its means, can never attain its avowed 
end. It may bring conquest, may make loyal subjects, or hollow- 
hearted pretended allies ; but it cannot make real union. The 
union of free States can neither be made or preserved by force. 

It is a solecism so to speak. Such a fanciful Union is consoli- 
dation in its most abhorrent form, wherein the majority, while it 
continues such, will wield not only their own powers, but those 
assigned to their subdued allies also, 

I thank God, that in His infinite wisdom and mercy He has 
been pleased thus to ordain. The truths I have announced, ought 
and will teach moderation and forbearance to all who value the 
Union of these States. Each will look to the fearful consequences 
to itself, that may attend its own acts, and will abstain from 
pushing even admitted powers to oppression. The right of seces- 
sion is the right of all ; it may be claimed by one to-day and by 
another to-morrow, as each may find itself aggrieved. lis appre- 
hended evils may be easily guarded against, by abstaining from 
exercising doubtful powers, or pressing legitimate powders until 
they become doubtful. The security of the Union is to be found 
in the common affections and common interests of the States, and 
not in the bayonets of its soldiery. 

By such feelings alone was the Union first formed, by such 
sentiments alone has it been since maintained, and by such senti- 
ments alone can it be preserved. 

Once deny this right of secession when it is claimed, and pre- 
vent or punish its exercise by military force, and surely as night 
succeeds the day, oar destiny as a free people is fulfilled. 

But what may bo done if a State unmindful of her faith Avill 
secede from an union to support whicli her faith has been pliglit- 
ed ? If she leaves anv common obligation unsatisfied, which mav 

R D - 1 O'J' 



PEOCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. HI 

be compensated by ber, demand it, and if you can, enforce tbis de- 
mand Tbe War, if war sball be necessary to accomphdi this 
end is then rigbtfiil and just. It will have an object tbat may 
be attained, and when attained, it brings peace, the only legiti- 
mate end of every war. 

But if she leaves no debt unpaid or any duty unfuliiiled, or 
when she has made the compensation required, let her go and let 
her go in peace. If she is but a single State, she will soon learn 
in her wants, the value of the Union she has abandoned, and will 
speedily return, if the evils of its government are not mtolerable. 
If there be many States, their right of secession will never be 

denied. , -r 

Should I pursue the subject, which this sentence suggests, 1 
should tread upon the ground which belongs to the Statesman 
exclusively. It is the business of the theorist, to scan the nature 
of this goVernment, and to deduce from thence its principles and 

its character. 

It is the business of the patriot Statesman to apply these prin- 
ciples, and in their application, to adapt them to the circum- 
stances of each particular case, so as to preserve this character. 
While he does so, he will but confirm the government m the con- 
duct of whose aifairs lie is called to assist. But if he seeks to 
pervert these principles, or to change this character, be is a Kevo- 
lutionist, whether his schemes are designed to be perfected by 
the arts of persuasion, the strong hand of force, or by any other 

means. , n ,^ • o 

One remark more and I have done. The author of this Proc- 
lamation, while speaking of this right of secession, says : '^ To call 
it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms: 
and can onlv be done through gross error, or to deceive those who 
are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a 
Revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure. 

I will say nothing of the spirit which dictated these declara- 
tions; whether the assertion of this right be a gross error, not this 
author but an enliditened world will judge ; and as to the mo- 
tives which prompt it, they, like those which produced the dec- 
larations I have quoted, can be understood by Him alone who can 
read the human heart. To His inspection mine are ^^'1]'^^^ 
submitted: but I utterly disclaim the authority of this self-sulb- 



112 PROCLAMATION OF PEESIDENT JACKSON. 

cient personage, the President, to denounce me and all others, 
from his throne, as stupid fools or cowardly knaves, because we 
do not concur in his new political dogmas, but dare to think for 
ourselves. _ And what in the name of common sense, has the 
question of j-ight to do with either his motives or mine? At last 
it will be found to turn upon what this author means by constitu- 
tional right, probably. 

According to his idea, it would seem, that there are no consti- 
tutional rights but such as are granted by the Constitution ; and, 
therefore, that the right of bearing arms, of peaceably assembling 
to consult about public affairs, of petitioning for a redress of 
grievances, are none of them constitutional rights, because no one 
of these is therein granted. 

But according to my notion, every right, and every power too,* 
not disparaged by any of the grants and prohibitions contained in 
the Constitution, are especially reserved therein, and so become 
constitutional rights and powers. The right of secession thus be- 
comes a constitutional ri^ht. 

I once thought, that none of the present generation would see 
the day, when these States would become "a single nation," or 
the government established by them " a Sovereign," claiming like 
every other sovereign, the rights of "self-defence," "a transfer of 
the allegiance of the citizens," and brandishing the weapons of 
its asserted powers in their faces. 

Eecent events, I acknowledge, have much diminished my con- 
fidence in this belief The same events have strengthened another 
opinion I have long entertained, that there exists no middle 
ground, between the Federal government established by the Con- 
stitution and that which will speedily succeed it, a simple, abso- 
lute, unmixed and hard military despotism. 

So long as this Constitution can be preserved, this may be 
averted. 

Then let the sovereign States who made it, guard well this ark 
of their political safety, which they know contains the Holy Cov- 
enant wherein is written the commandments of their law. Let 
each constantly cry aloud to every other and to all their servants, 
in the words of the inspired one, " nor do you prefer any other 
constitution of government before the laws now given to you." 

A ViEGINIAN. 



;: -^^^^ 






^v/^^^ 



^ "'^^S <i:^^^^% '--.^e^--/ '^^ '^^ "--^jp/ J'''^^ "-X 



^0 



^^r 






^> 







^9 • SsS\^ 

























o V 
















\V . t • 



. -^Wp.- ^'^'■% --ft.' /\ ^^-^ /'-^^^ -.^^ 



^*^, 










^0^ 



\i« ^^ ^ > » • • » 



A> OHO "^io r\" «i'»- 0_ 


















^^•n^. 







»;:-.S ■ /..i^.''°>^ ./.-^^j-X ,^°--;^-'X 




,.• > 



aV ^ • « " A^ "O \^ 



^^ o" 



'O. 'o . » * A 










ST. AUGUSTINE ,^/v, o 'J^ V^ ♦ fSUSi • '^ C,^ 













